One Scott Alexander is no threat to them, but 10 could be, and this is clearly going to produce a chilling effect.

Edit for clarification:

I mean 10 commentators with his level of diligence who are willing to engage with difficult issues without ignoring the complexity.

We desperately need more of that in our society, and this action by the NYT will have a chilling effect.

It is profoundly wrong and antidemocratic.

I mentioned this in another reply, but do you honestly think an obscure blog as SSC is a genuine threat to the NYT?

SSC is a highly influential analytical blog, NYT is fast becoming a fact free propaganda horn.

They're bound to clash.

I've considered NYT a propaganda rag ever since they marketed the attack on Iraq. Just because Trump is saying something does not mean it is false - a large part of how he gained such a following is from tapping into a lot of real frustrations that people have. Consolidated mainstream media in the US is the equivalent of state media in the USSR - they're both mouthpieces of the ruling power structure. The US just airs competing factions which creates an illusion of vibrancy.

(disclaimer: Please don't take this as some endorsement of Trump. Even though some of his claims are right, he apparently isn't so much opposed to that corruption as an outsider looking into get in on the action. Also after being elected, most presidents tone down the divisive pandering)

> ..he apparently isn't so much opposed to that corruption as an outsider looking into get in on the action. Also after being elected, most presidents tone down the divisive pandering

Agreed, of course.