Scott Alexander of @slatestarcodex is threatening to delete his blog because the New York Times is planning to reveal his real name: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-safety-by-revealing-my-real-name-so-i-am-deleting-the-blog/

Assuming that NYT hasn’t found some information that makes @slatestarcodex’s identity newsworthy (e.g., he is in fact a public figure for reasons other than his blog), I’d prefer that they preserve his pseudonymity. A few considerations:

NYT is clearly within the *rights* to publish his name (and he doesn’t seem to contest that), and in general the paper’s policy of publishing real names is a good one. If a subject says “call me ‘Max,’ “ and his name isn’t Max, the paper should deny him that shield, presumptively

However, to my knowledge, Scott Alexander has been consistent in his use of his pen name. He hasn’t sock-puppeted to sell nootropics through a secret account. He hasn’t used the pseudonym for nefarious or dishonest purposes, or hidden the fact of his hiding his real name.

In that sense, for the public purposes of the blog (which is great, and which I will mourn if it disappears), “Scott Alexander” is his name, and the revelation of the name under which he practices psychiatry is irrelevant, like revealing his social security number.

A good journalist would try to find out his real identity (I certainly would)—but only to ensure that he was being honest, and that he wasn’t someone otherwise important. And maybe he is! If not, I see little harm in letting him keep his identity private.

A related question is whether we should make pseudonymous writing easier. Some publications have a policy of allowing pseudonyms—but once you write under one name, you are stuck with it. That seems like a good policy. No constructing a Fort Zinderneuf of pseudonyms

Scott Alexander passes these tests, I think, so I’d be inclined to let him keep his real name to himself.

This case raises hard questions, and I hope someone brings me a case to challenge these tests. One shouldn’t be hard to find.

The guiding principle is always that journalists should do nothing that their smartest and most principled and fastidious readers would disapprove of, if they knew the full facts of the decision. Hard to imagine such a reader would demand SA’s real name