the NYT SSC article is both basically exactly what was expected, rather disappointingly. it skirts around saying anything of substance, preferring to maintain a veneer of objectivity & fairness, while making its real point in a rather Straussian way
the choice of which quotes to use, which questions to ask; the framing conveys what you're supposed to get out of it. the reporter acts vaguely indignant about the backlash to him dropping Scott's name, never quite saying it was unwarranted but framing it as vaguely ridiculous
overall, it's a limp-wristed anti-Tech hit piece which tries to claim socmed needs to be censored bc those who build it hold dangerous beliefs, while shying away from explaining what those are, rather using tenuous connections to unsavory groups to besmirch an entire set of ideas
a link, if you must. but there's nothing too interesting or new here
cool art tho
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-codex-rationalists.html