I think the consensus was that he wasn't the guy. The guy didn't have relevant experience and didn't act like the guy, plus it would be very strange to use your real name but then not expect anything to come of it.
By using a pseudonym, he implied he'd rather not be known by his given name. Telling the world his real then goes against his wishes. It is, at the very least, rude.
That someone outed him is inevitable. But that doesn't excuse the act.
I think this is inaccurate. _why conceals his identity behind a handle, and few people think of him as a loser. It's not about whether you use a handle or your real name -- it's about what you do with it.
His identity was revealed the moment he put his actual full name to the paper though :/ I would has sympathy if he actually did use a pseudonym, but assuming this is true then what did he really expect would happen?
I called it when the story first broke with a simple question any reporter should've asked themselves:
> There's one thing that doesn't add up: why would such a privacy conscious man use his real name on a project he thought might be illegal? If he was so serious about his privacy, he would not have used his real name in public.
I think the real take-away from this is to just stay legit. Don't try to do anything shady because it will most likely come back to bite you in the ass. The guy is actually pretty dumb for not realizing they could figure out who he was while using a handle that contains his real name.
It seems really odd that he'd use his real name in the byline. Getting caught after doing that is not exactly an unforeseeable consequence, which means he was probably ready to move on to the next phase anyway, and getting the byline is more valuable to him than maintaining the status quo.
My guess? He's going after a book deal or something.
The victim is a real person with a PhD thesis that anyone can read.
Why would someone jeopardize his reputation by using his real name on some kind of staging of a fake account swap? I kindly disagree with your second sentence.
If 'meh' had used a real name they probably would have attacked him pretty early in that conversation - going after his job or his reputation in other areas.
The shield of a pseudonym allowed him to stand strong and forced his opponents to engage with him, resulting in this masterful display of defeating an SJW mob. This is a lesson to us all, and a reminder of what is no longer possible with "real name" policies.
I think we agree about most things here... in my initial reading of your comment it seemed to paint the entire article negatively. You just criticized one particular aspect... a lot and perhaps that how I got that initial impression.
I wanted to express that talking about _why's identity wasn't the central part of the story. Anyone just reading your comment might get that impression.
I really just don't think the naming of names at this point is that big of a deal. Anyone who really wanted to know his name could have found him. Anyone who was in the public eye and who has decided to leave it has had to deal with the same issues. And while we don't discuss his name, out of courtesy and respect, I don't think she crossed the line.
Speculation like this isn't particularly productive. It's just as likely that someone else thought of the same association as you and chose the name to impersonate.
Definitely true. What comes from including your name though? I think had someone less widely known said the same thing more people would have questioned their motives.
I'd point out his profile but I imagine that would garner even more negative attention. ;)
Searching the web for his real name would reveal his pseudonym even before all this. He chose to keep using the same pseudonym because he didn't want to lose his audience.
reply