It was easy to go in the other direction already. People in the rationalist community discussed his pseudonymous writing using his real name. Just searching the web for his real name would find it.

yeah but there's still a difference between having your name floating around for those who look for it, and plastering it on a billboard alongside vague implications that he's a very bad man(TM).

He said he was concerned about patients finding the pseudonym when they searched for his real name. Regardless of the content.

The NYT article made specific claims. It's up to the reader to evaluate them and decide what to infer.

> He said he was concerned about patients finding the pseudonym when they searched for his real name. Regardless of the content.

I figured the extension of "and the pseudonym relates to the content" is implied, as knowing "Scott Alexander Siskind" goes by "Scott Alexander" online is not very useful information.

> The NYT article made specific claims. It's up to the reader to decide what to infer.

"I've only ever seen pseudalopex on a forum that's known to be frequented by racists" is a specific claim that is true, but it's clearly making strong inferences about your character. Journalists play this game all the time in hit pieces.

He was concerned about people finding Scott Alexander when they searched for Scott Siskind. Whether the NYT article would be positive or negative was irrelevant.

You analogy doesn't reflect the article.

> Why does he need to "deserve" anonymity? If you have something already and someone wants to take it away, don't you need to justify why you're taking that thing away?

This seems to me like strange framing. 'Anonymity' in this case is not something that someone 'owns' and others 'take it away', it is a demand on others to avoid certain behavior (speaking about your name).

Thinking and speaking is fundamental right. Therefore if person A research public sources to find person B's name, then it is fully within rights of person A to express that. If person B has some advantages from that not being expressed (like in this case), then is up to person B to negotiate with person A for that.

Trying to suppress information that is already public is often silly and counterproductive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

> Thinking and speaking is fundamental right. Therefore if person A research public sources to find person B's name, then it is fully within rights of person A to express that. If person B has some advantages from that not being expressed (like in this case), then is up to person B to negotiate with person A for that.

Who said anything about rights? I'm not arguing that spreading someone's name far and wide against their wishes is illegal. I'm saying it is a dick move, if someone has specifically asked you not to.

I think that fundamental rights not only specify what is legal, but also provide some default societal position on what is acceptable. Clearly, there are plenty of actions that are legal but are not socially acceptable, but it is on those who claim that the action is unacceptable to provide an argument against the default position. In this specific case, to argue why Scott Alexander 'deserves anonymity'.

> I'm saying it is a dick move, if someone has specifically asked you not to.

Is this guy a king? What gives him the right to tell the press what to print or not to print?

again with the argument about rights? He has no right or capability to force them not to print something, obviously. But he can ask them not to, and they can choose to be amenable to his request or not. Him asking them not to publish his name because he believes it could threaten his career, then them doing it anyway, is a dick move. But you know that's the argument I'm making - at this point you're just being needlessly obtuse.

> Why does he need to "deserve" anonymity? If you have something already and someone wants to take it away, don't you need to justify why you're taking that thing away?

That still doesn't answer my question. Sounds very abstract like you are trying to evade answering the question.

He didn't have anonymity. He already published his name. Someone that publishes their name doesn't deserve anonymity, correct?

> and that enabling his present and previous patients (he's a psychiatrist, so they're not always the most stable people) to discover his online persona would jeopardise his career.

He already admitted he was overreacting on this point.

> That still doesn't answer my question. Sounds very abstract like you are trying to evade answering the question.

I don't think your question merits answering, because framing anonymity as something one has to "deserve" makes no sense to me. Saying it needs to be "deserved" suggests it's a privilege granted to people for some merit, rather than the default on the internet until someone either surrenders it willingly, or in this case, has it stripped by another party - so it's akin to privacy in that way. Does anyone "deserve" privacy? Silly question really.

> He didn't have anonymity. He already published his name. Someone that publishes their name doesn't deserve anonymity, correct?

As far as I'm aware, he only published his full name after he knew the article was going up.

> He already admitted he was overreacting on this point.

I can still see how he would initially be worried. Shining a light on someone known for looking into controversial topics and then following it up with "by the way this is his name and he lives in such-and-such town" is vaguely threatening, and inviting people who read the article and decide he's a Nazi or something to mess with his real life.

>Someone that publishes their name doesn't deserve anonymity, correct?

Incorrect. Someone making a mistake does not give you the right to exploit that mistake. That's what Eric Harris thought but it's not how civilized society works. The fact that Scott gave some information away (indirectly) at some point (which you call "publishing") doesn't actually change the significance of the actions.

Searching for Eric Harris just finds the murderer. Is that who you meant?

Yes — once I read the FBI profile of Harris which noted an incident where he stole from an unlocked van and argued furiously that the victim deserved it for being foolish. It stuck in my head as a canonical example of that kind of thinking.

It's a superficial and incendiary analogy.

So if Sam Altman decides it was a mistake to reveal his name no publication should publish his name anymore?

Sam Altman clearly intended to be a public figure. Scott did not. This is not in question.