My last name is easy to find. My first name is Kurt, I live in Chicago, I work on startups. I've published with my last name within the last decade.

Scott Alexander's last name is also easy to find. His first name is Scott, his middle name is Alexander, he's a psychiatrist, and he lives in Michigan. This is all information he publicized.

And he has also published under his last name, even on SSC, within the last decade.

I'm not sure how to best capture it, but I think there is some irony to be found in the way you state that his last name is "easy to find" and "he lives in Michigan". The first paragraph of the linked article introduces him (correctly, I believe) as "Scott Alexander, the pseudonym of a Bay Area psychiatrist". He once lived in Michigan, but no longer does. One wonders if there is another psychiatrist named "Scott Alexander [something]" who currently lives in Michigan who has been having a really bad few weeks.

I'm confused, are you agreeing with Scott? Both of you have last names that are "easy to find," but neither of you are purposely making it easily available. You both believe that there is a difference between "technically can be found" and "is printed everywhere my pseudonym is." If I were to write your last name in this comment, I would be going against your implied wishes, where your implied wishes are visible because you didn't write it in your comment.

Is the bar for doxing really that low now? My last name is not private. Nor is Scott Alexander's.

My implied wishes (and really, his wishes) aren't terribly important. If either of us do something newsworthy, it's not doxing to attach our name to the news.

> Is the bar for doxing really that low now?

Also, if merely linking a real name to a pseudonymous online identity is doxing, then Alexander self-doxxed himself by republishing one of his SSC posts under his real name (while noting their origin) in book published by Springer.

An accurate definition of doxing would contain several components, a few of which would be: it's not doxing if you make the link yourself, and it's not doxing for a 3rd party to repeat the link you made (akin to the first sale doctrine).

Scott Alexander wasn't worried about readers of Slate Star Codex finding out his real name, he was worried about patients who knew his real name finding Slate Star Codex. Using a pseudonym on the blog was a reasonably effective trapdoor function.

Why publish something you wouldn't want your patients to read?

Psychiatrists want perfect isolation, so that they can treat everyone from far right nuts to far left nuts to plain unsalted nuts. The only way to do that would be to publish nothing, and surely you must agree that at least some psychiatrists must be cursed with good writing skills and something to say.

> Psychiatrists want perfect isolation

Publishing under your real first names, and letting people know where you work, is pretty far from "perfect isolation", isn't it?

He's not stupid. Why did he chose such a terrible pseudonym?

His blogging actually predates his medical career.

I'm all for anonymous publishing, I think it's a powerful and useful.

Retconning SSC as an "anonymous" publication is silly, though, and really dilutes the efforts of people who truly want to or need to remain anonymous.

Isn't he effectively doxxing his patients by revealing personal information (albeit slightly jumbled)? He's been writing under the thinnest veneer of anonymity and if he's considered about the things he writes affecting his patients, maybe he's either not taking enough measures to be anonymous or shouldn't be writing those things in the first place as a professional.

It's not easy to find, and I know, because I have tried to find it multiple times, and I haven't found it, and I'm quite google-savvy. I don't doubt that I could find it if I put in enough time, or if I was lucky to try the "right" method on the first try. It's probably also significantly easier to find it now that there is a bunch of chatter about it.

Ive never found it either. And there are always comments saying “it’s easy to find” which feeds into the notion that he’s not really anonymous. I don’t buy any of it.

I think the words going unsaid here are 'if you look in the right places', probably because the right places in this situation are not places respectable people want to associate with (for good reason).

Where is the "respectable" part of the internet? It's not like this guy is posting on silk road ...

Lol, fair point, although I was thinking in the other direction - I may not be able to define a respectable part of the internet, but I can definitely think of areas that are less reputable than others. The chans, etc. And it is pretty much exclusively in those places I have been able to find Scott's irl details.

Scott does not live in Michigan and has not for years.