undefined | Better HN

0 pointsNovaJehovah5y ago0 comments

They don't have to pretend that. But they also don't have to include someone's name when it's not pertinent to the story and could conceivably cause the person harm.

It doesn't matter if someone could just Google it. The NYT shouldn't make it easier unless there's journalistic value in doing so. Spite doesn't count.

Would you feel the same if this was a story about a sexual assault victim instead of a blogger?

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

tptacek5y ago· 2 in thread

Scott Alexander is not a victim of sexual assault; he's the author of a blog that he would rather not have connected to his name. The norms about sexual assault victims in journalism are specific (and they're contentious! Google CJR for examples) and you can't generalize from them.

NovaJehovahOP5y ago

In other words: no, you wouldn't feel the same.

He's a blogger, not an assault victim, but his concerns are similar. Avoiding harassment and physical violence against himself and his family. Avoiding negative consequences on his career.

Why are his concerns less valid than anyone else's? "Because I disagree with him" or "because he talks about ideas I don't think should have a platform" aren't good answers. There's no allegation he hurt anyone, did anything illegal, abused his influence, or acted in bad faith. So what's the journalistic purpose of exposing him?

ahepp5y ago

Since we're making absurd comparisons, what about violentacrez, who moderated a subreddit devoted to creepshots of underage girls?

Should his identity have been withheld because it would hurt his career, or he might be harassed?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse