https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/statement-on-new-york-...
Internet norms are only internet norms, they aren't everywhere norms. Cade Metz did not "doxx" Scott Alexander, because doxxing does not exist outside of some particular very online spaces. And Alexander even wasn't doxxed by properly-understood internet norms because he doxxed himself long before.
The situation was Scott Alexander was confused to think the norms of his community were controlling in every community, or that he could set arbitrary rules that everyone else would then be obligated to follow, and he has a lot of fans who share those confusions.
Journalism very much has the idea of protecting their sources. The NYT, for whatever reason, didn't feel like protecting Scott.
He wasn't a source, he was a subject.
Think of it this way: if the NYT was writing a story about Trump, is he a source they should protect? No, he's the subject: they might give him a chance to comment, but they're not going to let him dictate their coverage. A source would be (for instance) some White House staffer that gives an account of some non-public discussion Trump was part of, and who could expect reprisal for the act of giving that account.
IIRC, Metz learned Alexander's name independently of Alexander (not surprising because he linked it to his pseudonym himself), so Alexander was not the source and the NYT had no reasonable obligation to him to hide it.
I understand the difference. I'm responding to this line in particular:
> doxxing does not exist outside of some particular very online spaces
Journalists do understand that someone may want to keep their identity secret, which is what doxxing is. While doxxing as a term is particular to the internet, it - at least as a concept - predates the internet.
No, that's not what doxxing is.
Journalists understand the need for anonymity in certain contexts, but like I said, it's often part of a bargain for information. It's not about letting people control stories about them. They write stories about events that are embarrassing or damaging to named individuals all the time (e.g. reporting on the police blotter), even though I'm sure all those people would have preferred their identities be kept secret.
> While doxxing as a term is particular to the internet, it - at least as a concept - predates the internet.
Doxxing is entirely particular to the internet, because IRL people typically use their real names, and almost nobody hides behind pseudonymity.
Good point, but notably that info is literally in the public domain. Journalists aren't setting up sting operations to unmask Banksy, and if they did they'd get rightly criticized for it.
> Doxxing is entirely particular to the internet, because IRL people typically use their real names, and almost nobody hides behind pseudonymity.
You're really, really hung up on the fact that "doxxing" is medium specific, which is why I'm trying to move it to IRL activity. Honestly I think the fact that Metz can't respect the conventions/culture of the medium he's reporting on is another blow against his credability/employability.
No good misinformation or politically biased piece includes lies.
The New York Times (along with many other news outlets) has been known in recent years to be biased and untrustworthy to anyone that has been paying attention.
So while it is nice they have been around since the mid-19th century they should not be bestowed trust just because in the past they have may have had good reporting.
They were a major driver of the Iraq WMD theory and thus the Iraq War if you want one solid example.
The New York Times has been doing business continuously since 1851, is one of the cornerstones of democracy, a recognized leader in journalism schools across the globe, and to this day regularly fires journalists who are caught lying in a story. Anyone is free to literally walk into its offices at any time without being followed or shot.
It's safe to say there is no comparison here.