I'd provide a link here to one of the finest websites ever, Slate Star Codex, but the author took it down in anticipation of having his real name published in the New York Times. A bit of explanation is in order.
Slate Star Codex is the blog of Scott Alexander (a pseudonym), a practicing psychiatrist and amatuer philosopher (I guess you'd call it). He wrote with great clarity, not just in his field of psychiatry but in book reviews and general commentary and was even skilled at fiction. He would deep dive into commonly held beliefs, by which I mean he would pull apart the research behind them, often discovering very tenuous bases in fact. He would dig into commentary until he finally reached the assumptions at the firmament. Honestly, if for some reason I chose to try to make this blog into something of enduring value, I would want to be just like his.
Needless to say, his blog became quite popular and influential in certain circles. This drew the attention of the New York Times who wanted to profile it. In the course of their research they discovered Scott Alexander's real name and intended to publish it as part of the article.
Now. Scott has any number of political beliefs, although it would be hard to pigeon-hole him as right or left. Also, whenever discussing them, which is a rarity, he always gives the impression that he knows they are beliefs and not undebatable truths. And he always gives the impression that, were someone to demonstrate an error in his thinking, he would change his thinking. (Imagine that!) All that is to say that no reasonable person would take gross moral umbrage with Scott's beliefs. We are not, however, reasonable people.
First, as a psychiatrist, it's incredibly important that he is able to maintain personal distance from his clients. Exposure would potentially destroy that. Second, and he doesn't outright state this, but I suspect there is a strong possibility of him losing professional contacts or being outright cancelled if it turns out he had come to an unfashionable conclusion on a topic that angered the wrong people. So he removed the site. Here it is from the horse's mouth.
Absolutely no good comes of this. I work very hard to try to understand the motivations of both, or all, sides in controversy or conflict, but I see no cogent motivation for the NYT to do this. They are claiming it's a matter of journalistic ethics, but that holds no water. No harm would come from withholding Scott's real name (and the NYT has a long history of being flexible on journalistic standards).
I suppose the good news is that it's not going unresisted. There is a great deal of displeasure being expressed across the web and some within the NYT. As respected as Scott is, I do hope there will be consequences for the NYT. Were I important enough, I would, at a minimum, refuse them access and quotes. I would also no longer link to their website. (Yes, I can and will do that but it's meaningless in my case.) The article hasn't been published yet so maybe NYT will back off.
I have for years been in the camp of claiming the world is, on average, getting better, however slowly and haphazardly it may be happening. As little degradations like this build over time, it's harder and harder for me to maintain that optimism.
