Yes. Doxxing people whose only crime is producing good but complex content for the world to enjoy is cyberbullying. If bullies are on the right side of history I have no interest in the metric.
Doxxing, what? What do you think journalism is? It's very common for controversial authors with a very wide reach to be "revealed" and investigated? How do you know that this is "cyber bullying" after just reading one side of the story?
People seem have lost all sense of objectivity due to some sort of idolatry.
Scott is widely known for his impeccable mental honesty, even-handedness, and general niceness. There's a strong prior that what he says is, to the best of his knowledge, both true and presented in such a way as to reflect reality.
Well, now this 'controversial' author has been silenced; given that it reduced the number of places with better writing than the NYT, I would bet it will be permanent. Is that what you wanted?
He has certainly not been silenced in any way shape or form. Him closing his blog is just a way to create outrage, it has no effect in whether the NYT article will be published with his name or not.
The doubt you are trying to introduce is exactly the doubt that Scott Alexander has about his well being once exposed to the readership of the NYT (or anyone else in the world who catches a whiff of it).
If you think the journalist should enjoy being able to do what they want without an Internet mob, then why wouldn't you think the same way about Scott?
Harassing journalists for doing their job (we don't even know what kind of article this is yet) and revealing the real name of some blogger that has barely hidden their full name either way is worlds apart. The outrage, if there would even be one, that the latter would get would also be because of their own writings. If you write on controversial topics and have a large following you can't expect some sort of total anonymity. That's just naive to the point of stupidity.
