The energy spent trying to miss the point here is kind of breathtaking.

There existed a trivial mapping of A -> B. There did not exist a trivial mapping of B -> A. Scott was trying to prevent his patients, who had information B, from being bombarded with the link to A. It is not a hard concept to grasp.

Yes, we have all heard this before, many, many times. The connection not being made here is why it is that a newspaper is obliged to care about this.

I cannot understand the point of you switching back and forth between "he was already doxxed" and "well ok but actually the NYT should doxx him" in 25 separate threads on the topic.

I don't know what this word "doxxing" even means in this context. Does it mean calling unwanted attention to public information?

And you have yet to explain why there was a public interest in giving his real name that level of exposure.

But if you did a google search for his real name, his blog was not on the first page of results. Which was the main objective.

Links to his blog were. People in the rationalist community used his real name when talking about his pseudonymous writing.

That seems like it's more between Alexander and Google than between Alexander and the New York Times.