undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthrowaway3141557mo ago0 comments

Then he's not a very good one.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210215053502/https://www.nytim...

0 comments

That's essentially a retaliatory hit piece the NYT printed because they were mad that Scott deleted his website because the NYT wanted to doxx him. Not saying there's no merit to the article, but it should be looked upon skeptically due to that bias.

mola6mo ago

I just read this..I don't understand where the hit piece is...

Seems pretty factual.

The hysteria in the "rationalist" circles is mirroring the so called "Blue tribe" quite accurately.

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y77mo ago

> NYT wanted to doxx him

NYT wanted to report on who he was. He doxxed himself years before that (as mentioned in that article). They eventually also reported on that (after Alexander revealed his name, seeing that it was going to come out anyway, I guess), which is an asshole thing to do, but not doxxing, IMO.

lmm7mo ago

> NYT wanted to report on who he was.

They wanted to report specifically his birth/legal name, with no plausible public interest reason. If it wasn't "stochastic terrorism" (as the buzzword of the day was) then it sure looked a lot like it.

> He doxxed himself years before that

Few people manage to keep anything 100% secret. Realistically private/public is a spectrum not a binary, and publication in the NYT is a pretty drastic step up.

1 more reply

rendang7mo ago

What is the connection between the claim and the link?

meowface7mo ago

There isn't any. (Also, on top of that, I think it's overall not a very good article.)

chermi7mo ago

What a disgusting article.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse