It seems valuable for us to have a discussion about our reactions to it. Also what we want to do about it. Here are my questions:
The article pulls quotes out of context, looking for the problematizing angle, distorting the implications of word choice. It's also large. And the context is deep, because Scott's a deep thinker. Having a post explaining these problems that I could send to friends and family members for context, and for my own sanity, would be really nice. Edit: Scott wrote one.
Is the article a fair and much-needed outside piece of criticism that we should take seriously? We talk a bigger game about accepting and integrating outside criticism than many communities. Maybe this is our chance to really put that into practice?
Scott was told that the way to get ahead of damaging journalism is to reveal everything they might want to find out. For those of us writing under a pseudonym, should we all just be revealing our real names, and letting friends, family members, and colleagues (where appropriate) know about our connection with SSC and this community?
Update:
I've learned a lot about media today just by reading comment threads in SCC-associated communities. My intuitive takeaway is that it's time for a reckoning, and I need to build a model of how this stuff works on a systemic level.
I understand why some people criticized this post (and a longer article that I moved to drafts), for giving prominence. Personally, I agree with Dentin that it's best to shrug it off as crappy journalism and ignore it. I'd delete this post, except that I don't want to delete his and a few other comments along with it.
Is the article a fair and much-needed outside piece of criticism that we should take seriously? We talk a bigger game about accepting and integrating outside criticism than many communities. Maybe this is our chance to really put that into practice?
A "fair and much-needed outside piece of criticism" would arguably take advantage of its outside perspective to point out community taboos and blind spots. Reading about your blind spots should, almost per definition I guess, make your reading stumble in strange and unpredicted ways. But the NYT article is depressingly predictable in its attempt to discredit reputation by alluding to vague links to right-wing positions and figures. The predictability reaches almost comical levels where the author isn't even shy to quote the very sentences that Scott already highlighted and tagged as "These are the sentences that can be taken out of context to discredit me if you are insincere. Please don't do it. But honestly, we all know you will do it. So whatever."
But apart from the politics and the signaling games, it still seems like a worthy exercise to look for object-level claims in the article. I found one:
Slate Star Codex was a window into the Silicon Valley psyche. There are good reasons to try and understand that psyche, because the decisions made by tech companies and the people who run them eventually affect millions.
The Cade Metz article on Slate Star Codex is out.
It seems valuable for us to have a discussion about our reactions to it. Also what we want to do about it. Here are my questions:
Update:
I've learned a lot about media today just by reading comment threads in SCC-associated communities. My intuitive takeaway is that it's time for a reckoning, and I need to build a model of how this stuff works on a systemic level.
I understand why some people criticized this post (and a longer article that I moved to drafts), for giving prominence. Personally, I agree with Dentin that it's best to shrug it off as crappy journalism and ignore it. I'd delete this post, except that I don't want to delete his and a few other comments along with it.