Why is Scott's real name even relevant to the article? He has good reason not to want it published, and his real name is of no interest to most readers given that his entire public online presence is in the name "Scott Alexander". Knowing that Lewis Carroll was really called Charles Dodgson may be a piece of trivia that makes you win a pub quiz one day, and it may be of niche interest to someone who reads one of his mathematical papers and realises that the author is the same as the author of Alice, but Scott's real name won't even win you a pub quiz and has similarly niche publications that are not of remotely general interest.
If I was a writer I would not suddenly start using internet psuedonyms just because it sounds like a real person's name, much in the same manner putting down Groyper1488 in my article is ridiculous.
If your issue is that an online handle may sound strange or silly (e.g., ‘Count Dankula’), how would you handle someone whose legal name sounds strange or silly (e.g., ‘Moon Unit Zappa’ or ‘X AE A-XII’)?
If your issue is that an online handle is not someone's legal name, how would you handle someone who goes by a certain form of their legal name (e.g., using their middle name rather than their first name)? How would you handle someone whose name includes a title (e.g., ‘Cpl Bloggs’ or ‘Ambassador Taylor’)?
Everyone has a number of labels used to identify them, and the appropriateness of each is dependent on the situation being used. In the context of an article about the online community surrounding someone's online blog, which they publish under a certain name, it is entirely appropriate to use the relevant name. The only way that that person's legal name would be relevant to the article would be if it was reporting on their conduct outside of that community as well, which this article does not appear to have been doing.
Scott Alexander is actually his real first and middle name. All he’s asking is for them to not use his real last name. Apparently, that’s beyond them, they simply must do it regardless of the cost to him and of how little relevance it has.
Really? "A popular blogger who writes under the name Scott Alexander…" isn't really any worse than "A popular streamer who uses the handle Day9" or something.
The term "doxxing" is used in communities where it's normalized to harass people and try to ruin their lives because you think they're a jerk. In such a community, exposing someone's real identity against their will is a hostile act.
Unfortunately, all of American society is now such a community, so all investigative journalism about someone's identity is now also doxxing. I'm not any happier about that than you are, and hope we can return to better norms so that investigative journalism is less of a danger for its targets.
Why is Scott's real name even relevant to the article? He has good reason not to want it published, and his real name is of no interest to most readers given that his entire public online presence is in the name "Scott Alexander". Knowing that Lewis Carroll was really called Charles Dodgson may be a piece of trivia that makes you win a pub quiz one day, and it may be of niche interest to someone who reads one of his mathematical papers and realises that the author is the same as the author of Alice, but Scott's real name won't even win you a pub quiz and has similarly niche publications that are not of remotely general interest.
If I was a writer I would not suddenly start using internet psuedonyms just because it sounds like a real person's name, much in the same manner putting down Groyper1488 in my article is ridiculous.
If your issue is that an online handle may sound strange or silly (e.g., ‘Count Dankula’), how would you handle someone whose legal name sounds strange or silly (e.g., ‘Moon Unit Zappa’ or ‘X AE A-XII’)?
If your issue is that an online handle is not someone's legal name, how would you handle someone who goes by a certain form of their legal name (e.g., using their middle name rather than their first name)? How would you handle someone whose name includes a title (e.g., ‘Cpl Bloggs’ or ‘Ambassador Taylor’)?
Everyone has a number of labels used to identify them, and the appropriateness of each is dependent on the situation being used. In the context of an article about the online community surrounding someone's online blog, which they publish under a certain name, it is entirely appropriate to use the relevant name. The only way that that person's legal name would be relevant to the article would be if it was reporting on their conduct outside of that community as well, which this article does not appear to have been doing.
Scott Alexander is actually his real first and middle name. All he’s asking is for them to not use his real last name. Apparently, that’s beyond them, they simply must do it regardless of the cost to him and of how little relevance it has.
Really? "A popular blogger who writes under the name Scott Alexander…" isn't really any worse than "A popular streamer who uses the handle Day9" or something.
1 reply →
The term "doxxing" is used in communities where it's normalized to harass people and try to ruin their lives because you think they're a jerk. In such a community, exposing someone's real identity against their will is a hostile act.
Unfortunately, all of American society is now such a community, so all investigative journalism about someone's identity is now also doxxing. I'm not any happier about that than you are, and hope we can return to better norms so that investigative journalism is less of a danger for its targets.
When "journalism" became "activism"
Newpapers have always had an agenda, and interests to forward, so the "when" is "always".