Comment by Habryka - (Copying over the same response I posted over on LW) I don't have all the context of Ben's investigation here, but as someone who has done investigations like this in the past, here are some thoughts on why I don't feel super sympathetic to requests to delay publication:  In this case, it seems to me that there is a large and substantial threat of retaliation. My guess is Ben's sources were worried about Emerson hiring stalkers, calling their family, trying to get them fired from their job, or threatening legal action. Having things be out in the public can provide a defense because it is much easier to ask for help if the conflict happens in the open.  As a concrete example, Emerson has just sent me an email saying:  For the record, the threat of libel suit and use of statements like "maximum damages permitted by law" seem to me to be attempts at intimidation. Also, as someone who has looked quite a lot into libel law (having been threatened with libel suits many times over the years), describing the legal case as "unambiguous" seems inaccurate and a further attempt at intimidation.  My guess is Ben's sources have also received dozens of calls (as have I in the last few hours), and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Emerson called up my board, or would otherwise try to find some other piece of leverage against Lightcone, Ben, or Ben's sources if he had more time.  While I am not that worried about Emerson, I think many other people are in a much more vulnerable position and I can really resonate with not wanting to give someone an opportunity to gather their forces (and in that case I think it's reasonable to force the conflict out in the open, which is far from an ideal arena, but does provide protection against many types of threats and adversarial action). Separately, the time investment for things like this is really quite enormous and I have found it extremely hard to do work of this type in parallel to other kinds of work, especially towards the end