"Some people want to kill me or ruin my life, and I would prefer not to make it too easy. I’ve received various death threats. I had someone on an anti-psychiatry subreddit put out a bounty for any information that could take me down (the mods deleted the post quickly, which I am grateful for). I’ve had dissatisfied blog readers call my work pretending to be dissatisfied patients in order to get me fired. And I recently learned that someone on SSC got SWATted in a way that they link to using their real name on the blog. I live with ten housemates including a three-year-old and an infant, and I would prefer this not happen to me or to them. Although I realize I accept some risk of this just by writing a blog with imperfect anonymity, getting doxxed on national news would take it to another level."
Do you feel that that addresses your concerns? It seems reasonable to predict that he'd have more of those safety problems if the number of people who know his real name increases by 2+ orders of magnitude, and if it appears prominently on a website with a high rank on Google.
Many of the responses critical of his decision seem to read as "Here's reason X that his decision is non-sensical, and I didn't read the actual link where he clearly and reasonably addresses reason X."
That's pretty dismissive. I read what he said. I was not convinced. For him, this is an illogical, emotional, and disingenuous move. I fully believe this is about a personal slight by the reporter, who did not accede to his request.
You must agree there is a difference between, "if I know this person's blog I can find their real name in under an hour", and "if I search this person's real name I can find their blog instantly on the NYTimes".
The first type of anonymity he does not currently have. But he does have the second type.
And it's true there is some truth to him being emotional. If he didn't possess any anxiety or fear then he wouldn't be worried and scared that if it's easier to find him more people will harass him (which has already happened). Lots of people have lost their jobs because they said something people didn't like on the internet so this seems like a reasonable fear.
Nothing about this seems illogical or disingenuous about this. What part of this fairly simple straightforward explanation doesn't make sense to you?
I’d say the dismissiveness is well warranted since you are impugning Scott’s motives without justifying yourself, or any of your claims. If you make poor faith assumptions about others, you can hardly complain when others are dismissive of what your write.
I think I've justified my opinion well enough. And I still hold it.
I'm not concerned with people dismissing what I say on its merit, only presuming that because I wasn't convinced by his explanation that I hadn't read it which is dismissive.
You said because he meets people in real life and gives his real name, he should have no problem with any person with the ability to read the NYT being able to connect the dots through the article between his employment and his personal ideas on his blog.
His meatspace introductions necessarily have an upper limit, but the Internet will instantly and concurrently bring down the law of large numbers upon him, where every whack job sharing every dumb FB post about how he's evil will have an opportunity to ruin his life, his and his employer's work, the patients that depend on them, and/or the lives of his cohabitants in all the same ways.
As someone who knows people who work in mental health I can assure you there are many security vectors available once someone's real identity hits the internet and social media. I'm talking about patients who are in hiding from pimps, abusive family or significant others.
It's no different than using HTTPS or CORS to mitigate security threats. You're essentially saying that since my acquaintances in mental health go to a therapy conference or a trivia night at the bar, that their personal lives should be exposed to the entire world in perpetuity. You're essentially saying that any SaaS should leave their ports open to the world for every scanner and scammer to exploit.
Nope, you just lack information. His "real life divergences" are in the context of his blog at events relevant to his blog. He hasn't been shy. If he was concerned, truly, then he could have protected himself more thoroughly by being careful. Moreover, the information is already out there. Anyone sufficiently motivated to get him will find his information. Whether it's widely publicized or not makes no difference, except in that he may face personal scrutiny for his heterodox opinions. Him framing this in the context of personal safety is where he's full of it.
"Some people want to kill me or ruin my life, and I would prefer not to make it too easy. I’ve received various death threats. I had someone on an anti-psychiatry subreddit put out a bounty for any information that could take me down (the mods deleted the post quickly, which I am grateful for). I’ve had dissatisfied blog readers call my work pretending to be dissatisfied patients in order to get me fired. And I recently learned that someone on SSC got SWATted in a way that they link to using their real name on the blog. I live with ten housemates including a three-year-old and an infant, and I would prefer this not happen to me or to them. Although I realize I accept some risk of this just by writing a blog with imperfect anonymity, getting doxxed on national news would take it to another level."
Do you feel that that addresses your concerns? It seems reasonable to predict that he'd have more of those safety problems if the number of people who know his real name increases by 2+ orders of magnitude, and if it appears prominently on a website with a high rank on Google.