I've thought a LOT about that issue If a famous person wants their personal effects destroyed, unless it's already known that they committed a crime or great harm that caused them to forfeit that right, their right to privacy outweighs the interest of future historians
-
-
Show this thread
-
I've thought a lot about this particularly as a result of arguing about Dr. James Barry, and how I think it's unquestionably true that the charwoman who uncovered his corpse committed a grave violation, and it would have been better had his secret never been discovered
Show this thread -
There's a lot of famous people who we'll never know if they were trans, or queer, or cheated on their partner, or had a bastard child, or various other "shameful" things because the people they trusted their secrets with honored that trust
Show this thread -
There are a lot of other famous people where we DO know these things because someone DID break that trust And historians tend to rush toward such sources of juicy gossip and lap them up, and that's the nature of the game But we should at least feel a little shame over it
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Vivisection as a metaphor for data generation through privacy invasion. Brilliant! I may steal this.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.