Anyway this, itself, is black and white thinking, absurdly so Extrapolated even a little way out it makes the concept of journalism impossible - "You're NOT ALLOWED to say things about me I don't want said"
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @NotoriousAapje and
Talking about things people don't want talked about is a delicate matter Doing it for its own sake is, sure, just being a jerk But there obviously exists a countervailing ethical pressure where you have to ask "How many people would be upset to know they were ignorant of this"
1 reply 1 retweet 23 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NotoriousAapje and
It's normally no one else's business if someone cheats on their spouse, but if that person is famous, if they're a church pastor, if they write self-help books about relationships, if they get praised as a "role model" Then it starts being other people's business
1 reply 1 retweet 37 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NotoriousAapje and
You start to have to wrestle with the fact that you are, in fact, committing a sin of omission and helping deceive people every time someone decides to give that person their trust or admiration they wouldn't if they knew the whole story
1 reply 1 retweet 23 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NotoriousAapje and
Merely being "famous" should not negate your right to privacy
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sigismond_bis @NotoriousAapje and
You keep talking about "rights" This is not a *legal* right that exists in the form you say it does, and if it did -- the right to not have people say true things they know about you because it's harmful to you -- then "free speech" wouldn't meaningfully be a right
2 replies 3 retweets 29 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Sigismond_bis and
I can say that talking about someone's "private business" online is not nice I can say it's not a good way to use your time and that if you're trying to run a respectable media business, dunking on randos all the time is bad for your brand But it's not violating "rights"
3 replies 1 retweet 18 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Sigismond_bis and
I mean I just talked about how respectable middle-class Americans tend to think other people's adultery is "none of your business" but sheesh are you *violating someone's rights* if you decide to go on Facebook and tell everyone how shitty your ex is
2 replies 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Sigismond_bis and
The Scott defenders are making a very, very strong claim here They're not even talking about "uncovering private information", they're talking about making already-public information TOO public
2 replies 3 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Sigismond_bis and
Technically, any privacy violation is signal boosting. Something that is 100% private cannot be used for doxing by definition.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, which is why the term "invasion of privacy" generally refers to information that was initially acquired through an illegal act (theft or trespassing)
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @NotoriousAapje and
If no crime, tort, and/or breach of contract occurred in order for someone to initially learn the information, then legally there wasn't an invasion of privacy Whether there was ethically is subjective and highly dependent on context
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NotoriousAapje and
And hell, even by informal understandings of honoring a confidence or whatever, Scott's name wasn't that I mean it WASN'T a secret told to a journalist in confidence, it was something a journalist could easily Google
1 reply 2 retweets 12 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
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.