Journalists typically ask two questions here: 'does this person wish to be named?' and 'is it in the public interest to ignore this request?'. It is highly dubious that there is any public interest in revealing Scott's name, hence the outrage.
Second, depending on the story and person, revealing a name can very easily lead to revealing phone numbers and addresses. So this isn't just 'a name'.
Finally, Scott very clearly does not want to be a public figure.
>Finally, Scott very clearly does not want to be a public figure.
If you're writing a blog under a consistent identity pretty much by definition you are a public figure because you're creating public discourse and attaching your name/pseudonym to it.
You can't really have it both ways. If you want to speak publicly but truly don't want to be identified you can do that by just posting anonymously, or you can just not engage in public discourse.
But if you do write even with some invented persona clearly you want others to recognise that.
His persona is his first and middle name, and he's posted his profession, place of residence on the blog and attented public events, even posted pictures of himself and organised real world SSC meetups. So you'll have to explain to me how his goal was to separate those identities.
Hell he is explicitly blogging as a psychiatrist, which is his actual identity.
If he wanted to keep them separate it would have been trivial to keep them separate. He never chose to do that. He even blogged about his patients.
Because what he articulates is contradicted by his behaviour on a regular basis. Scott is an intelligent guy, if he wanted to stay anonymous he could. He clearly doesn't, so he is at the very least insincere.
There's an increasing culture on the internet of wanting to be able to speak to large audiences without being personally held accountable for what is being said, treating pseudonomity or anonmity as a right rather than as a personal practise.
This was already explained so many times at Hacker News, at least three times by myself. Here is another attempt:
If you are a reader of Slate Star Codex, and you google for e.g. "Scott Alexander, psychiatrist", you can find that his real identity is Alex Salamander. Scott was always okay with this, because he trusts his readers. (Yeah, maybe he regrets it now.)
But if you are a patient looking for a psychiatrist, and you google for "Dr. Alex Salamander", Scott doesn't want you to find Slate Star Codex. Because... that's obviously not a good thing to read for people who are depressed, or paranoid, or whatever.
NYT publishing an article containing "Alex Salamander" and "Slate Star Codex" together, would obviously put SSC into top google results for "Alex Salamander". Which is what Scott is trying to prevent. Does it make more sense now?
tl;dr:
google for Scott Alexander, find Alex Salamander = okay;
google for Alex Salamander, find Scott Alexander = not okay
(By the way, his real name is not Alex Salamander, I just made it up now to make the example easier to read.)
>NYT publishing an article containing "Alex Salamander" and "Slate Star Codex" together, would obviously put SSC into top google results for "Alex Salamander". Which is what Scott is trying to prevent. Does it make more sense now?
Yeah that makes total sense, I understand why he doesn't want that. But this doesn't really mean a journalist shouldn't divulge it if the journalist thinks using his name is in the public interest. (which in itself is a case-by-case judgement of course, but using people's real names who engage in public discourse is quite common).
That was my earlier point, if both your real name and your pseudonym are out there and connected, you don't really have a right or even a really reasonable expectation to not turn up in a Google search result.
That said I have a different suspicion. He may be simply afraid that his patients feel betrayed when they find out he's been blogging about them in the past, and they might be uncomfortable with the content they find on the site, even if in anonymized form.
Barrin92 has been posting publicly since 2016 and has amassed a considerable amount (10k+) since then. Clearly, you're a public figure since you're creating public discourse and attaching your name/pseudonym to it.
Presumably you should be okay publishing your personal/legal name, and easy-to-google employment information. I'll wait.
I'm not okay with it which is why I don't share personally identifiable information here, which is a pretty straightforward thing not to do. If my username was my actual name and you'd figure out who I am, you can safely assume I don't give a crap.
And if I did something that creates so much public attention that people want to know who I am and can figure that out with a minute of Googling, yeah then I'm not anonmyous any more, but I'd not go around whining about journalists doing their job.
It's my responsibility to consider how much about me I share on the internet, not anyone else's.
Second, depending on the story and person, revealing a name can very easily lead to revealing phone numbers and addresses. So this isn't just 'a name'.
Finally, Scott very clearly does not want to be a public figure.