I have complicated feelings about the SlateStarCodex issue, because it looks like most of the discussion has collapsed the separate questions of 1) is it right for the NYT to reveal Scott Alexander's true name? and 2) is SSC itself a vital source of "great thought"? 1/24
On 1: I think the argument that NYT shouldn't deanonymize Scott Alexander because of the potential harm to his life and patients is a strong argument. Revealing Scott's name is bad for almost everyone involved, there's no benefit to the public for it. 2/24
The strongest counterargument to that centers on accountability. In general: should someone be able to use an anonymous platform to influence the public, without having potential consequences to their private, professional life? 3/24
The modal answer, I'd guess, is "Almost no one should suffer physical violence from such exposure, and we should grant people privacy to free them from mob justice. But depending on how much power people have and how they use it, we may have a right to know who they are." 4/24
That is, the amount of accountability people have should in some sense be proportional to the power they have. Most people seem to agree to this; it's baked into the social contract for democracies. 5/24
In Scott's case, this is tricky because he has two mostly-separate identities, one of which has comparatively minimal power, and one of which influences powerful people and as a result has more power. It makes sense to hold the latter accountable to the public at large. 6/24
Is that accountability properly obtained by revealing his true name? I honestly don't think so. It grants some people slightly more leverage over him to modulate what he says and how he uses his power. But not much, and it's not clear using that leverage serves anyone. 7/24
If the leverage is exercised, and his personal life suffers (through exposure to physical violence and damage to his professional life), he doesn't lose any of the things that gave him power in his identity as an online author. The use of leverage doesn't accomplish the aim. 8/24
It really does mostly seem to hurt the people he works with, and his employer. Psychiatric relationships are hard to replace. They're founded on trust build up over a long time. There's no overnight transition that doesn't disrupt his patients' lives substantially. 9/24
If his online work was strongly dependent on information solely available to him through the continued access to being employed in his profession, it would make more sense to connect his online and offline identity for accountability. But that's not the case. 10/24
So overall---my calculus is that the NYT is in the wrong. It's important to protect Scott's anonymity. De-anonymizing him is a harmful action not in the public interest. 11/24
On 2: Is SSC a vital source of "great thought?" I'll be one of the few people to take a somewhat contrary stance to many in my circle: the record is mixed. Most of what he writes is useful and important, and many values he espouses are good and pure of heart. But not all. 12/24
It's important to me that we can honestly acknowledge that doing good things doesn't make someone or something a universal or perfect good. And especially that what's good for me, or you, is not good for everyone. 13/24
Scott Alexander has written some really incredible articles that articulate deep, complex thoughts in accessible ways, helping people become more charitable, compassionate, and open-minded. He also wrote things that gave comfort and power to racists and sexists. 14/24
Yes, he wrote things that were extremely reasonable, he focused on evidence, he tried to be thorough about claims. He explicitly disavowed racism and sexism and tried to make this as clear as possible. He cared about truth. But. BUT. 15/24
I want to be clear that I don't think there is something fundamentally wrong with truth-seeking on charged, controversial topics. But there is a special level of consideration needed for truth-seeking when dimensions of harm are important. 16/24
An analogy I'll use here is medical false positives. A patient is tested for a condition whose treatment will be fatal if the patient isn't really sick. The false positive rate for the test is X%. Designing the test so that X is very small is critical. 17/24
Similarly, on truth-seeking for controversial topics---if you know that certain claims (whether true or not) will give power and support to people who explicitly intend to cause harm, you have an obligation to set the bar on the claims proportionally high to the harm. 18/24
I think Scott sincerely tried to set the bar in the right place. But that isn't, in itself, sufficient to make the claim that he succeeded at putting the bar in the right place. I'd venture that sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't. And we shouldn't look away. 19/24
I don't have a firm answer, overall, on the question of "is SSC net good, or net harmful?" when considering the full record. This question is separate from "should SSC exist?" and "did SSC do any good?", and I do think the answer to those two questions is yes. 20/24
To be clear: I am definitely NOT saying "Scott is a racist" or "Scott is a sexist." If that's your takeaway about my opinion, you are mistaken. My opinion is that we shouldn't paint a complex situation with a broad brush that elides over challenges to our worldview. 21/24
Normally I like to tie up long opinion threads with a nice bow---I don't have one here. This is a thread about messiness. The world is messy, virtue is messy. You can try hard to be good and still hurt people. We can praise people for trying and also acknowledge the outcomes. 22/
We enable injustice when we measure things as "all good" or "all bad." We create power and exercise power in a million little actions and judgments, and this kind of thing---evaluating complex work all in one direction or another---is one of those ways. 23/24
I hope this helps. Please do your best. I'll do my best too. 24/24
