I think I have different expectations when engaging in reasoned discourse than when publishing to an un-responsive semi-entity (the NYT is not a reasoning agent, it’s an institution comprising both individual and shared history and decision-making). I also think that BOTH the object-level and the overall principles are important, and communication should show how they align.
I would strongly prefer that the NYT _not_ publish unnecessary and harmful identifying information about people who don’t want it. That applies to everyone—list them by their public, common moniker, not necessarily their legal name. I would separately like Scott to feel safe in continuing to publish his excellent works. These are in complete alignment.
The tactics for focusing some organizational attention on the issue are varied, but I agree they’re ambiguous between a petulant demand for this specific object result, and an altruistic punishment to bring attention to a harmful (IMO) overall policy. I hope the NYT is a sane enough organization to take the useful parts and ignore the harmful ones. And I don’t think our group is big or powerful enough that we’re going to force the NYT into any unacceptable (to them) solution.
tl;dr: the document doesn’t need to say explicitly that the NYT should make it’s own reasonable decisions, as that’s implicit and required by the position the NYT holds. That’s the very nature of groups protesting against large organizations—the organization gets to and has to decide how and whether to change their behavior, and ‘FU’ is a valid and not-uncommon response.
I think I have different expectations when engaging in reasoned discourse than when publishing to an un-responsive semi-entity (the NYT is not a reasoning agent, it’s an institution comprising both individual and shared history and decision-making). I also think that BOTH the object-level and the overall principles are important, and communication should show how they align.
I would strongly prefer that the NYT _not_ publish unnecessary and harmful identifying information about people who don’t want it. That applies to everyone—list them by their public, common moniker, not necessarily their legal name. I would separately like Scott to feel safe in continuing to publish his excellent works. These are in complete alignment.
The tactics for focusing some organizational attention on the issue are varied, but I agree they’re ambiguous between a petulant demand for this specific object result, and an altruistic punishment to bring attention to a harmful (IMO) overall policy. I hope the NYT is a sane enough organization to take the useful parts and ignore the harmful ones. And I don’t think our group is big or powerful enough that we’re going to force the NYT into any unacceptable (to them) solution.
tl;dr: the document doesn’t need to say explicitly that the NYT should make it’s own reasonable decisions, as that’s implicit and required by the position the NYT holds. That’s the very nature of groups protesting against large organizations—the organization gets to and has to decide how and whether to change their behavior, and ‘FU’ is a valid and not-uncommon response.