undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfao_5y ago0 comments

Interesting that you didn't bother looking for it. I'm not sure how you can "see" something if you don't look :)

Anyway, the note is copied pretty much verbatim from the Rational Wiki page on him: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Alexander

Which links here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200623184053/https://twitter.c...

It links to the bottom of the thread in question. The gist of it is that, Scott Alexander communicated and had an open dialogue with the reporter, he knew that his name was going to be published (At the least, he didn't demand anonymity). The reporter initially had a positive take on SSC. The person in the linked tweet spoke to the reporter and introduced them to a different perspective, and put them in contact with other people with a slightly negative perspective of the blog. As soon as the reported started contacting those people, however, Scott suddenly had a problem with his name being published, and the blog was deleted.

0 pointsfao_5y ago0 comments

Interesting that you didn't bother looking for it. I'm not sure how you can "see" something if you don't look :)

Anyway, the note is copied pretty much verbatim from the Rational Wiki page on him: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Alexander

Which links here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200623184053/https://twitter.c...

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

zaphar5y ago· 2 in thread

My policy regarding unsubstantiated rumor is to ignore it not go trying figure out if it's true or not. The burden is on the person spreading the rumor to back it up not on me to do it for them. If you had linked the above in your original comment it would have been of marginally more value than than the unsubstantiated statement.

That said your link does not in fact substantiate your statement that I can see. It is speculation on twitter also with no substantiation. Rumors frequently have a long chain where links in the chain use previous links as substantiation. It's why rumor is so unproductive in the first place. It poses as fact but if you chase it far enough frequently ends up being false or misleading.

fao_OP5y ago

> It is speculation on twitter

No, all of the statements are there, they're first-hand accounts. The rest can easily be derived from given evidence.

They state first that they talked to the reporter, who had a positive bent.

They state that the reporter became increasing interested in a second perspective on SSC.

Third, it is a fact that Scott Alexander knew that the reporter was doing the article, and did not request anonymity (Otherwise the reporter would not have disclosed his name at any stage). So it can be seen that anonymity was not of interest to Scott when the reporter started out on the article.

Four, Scott Alexander deleted the site immediately after the reporter started seeking out opposing views. He did not do this at any time beforehand, when it would have been more prudent to do so.

zaphar5y ago

Your first statement is verifiable as is your second. The third however is not. It is speculation as is the fourth. Since your rumor hinges on the third and the fourth it must still be considered unsubstantiated.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse