Hey @CadeMetz, you’ve written a time or two about me before and I seem to remember liking your work.
But doxxing Scott Alexander / SlateStarCodex? Since when did it become OK for journalists to reveal a pseudonym of an author?
Not cool. Can you explain?
msn.com/en-us/news/us/…
But doxxing Scott Alexander / SlateStarCodex? Since when did it become OK for journalists to reveal a pseudonym of an author?
Not cool. Can you explain?
msn.com/en-us/news/us/…
Isn’t there a serious ethical issue here, namely, the fact that Scott writes under a pseudonym means that by agreeing to talk to you, he had a reasonable expectation that you would respect the confidentiality of your source?
He wouldn’t have agreed to talk to you if he knew you’d be revealing his identity, right? You relied on that assumption, which was reasonable and not in need of explicit confirmation since he famously wrote under a valuable pseudonym for years.
Does it not follow that you revealing his identity is tantamount to revealing the identity of a confidential source—the ultimate no-no of journalistic ethics?
You can quibble, but that’s how it looks from where I sit.
I wonder what the law is—if a jury might agree with me.
You can quibble, but that’s how it looks from where I sit.
I wonder what the law is—if a jury might agree with me.
Consider quora.com/Can-a-source-w…
Update: it appears that SSC’s identity was the story all along.
Despicable.
Despicable.
Huh
“He said he would talk to his editor, then came back saying that his editor said the article couldn't be published without my real name. He said he was really sorry about this and I believe him."
Sorry man but my editor says I have to doxx you.
Editor sounds like a POS.
“He said he would talk to his editor, then came back saying that his editor said the article couldn't be published without my real name. He said he was really sorry about this and I believe him."
Sorry man but my editor says I have to doxx you.
Editor sounds like a POS.
