4 ms·

So you'd like it if Gawker was trolling your feed (and those of your friends and family) for what they feel to be sufficient disclosure to post some gossip clic

by nickff 10y ago

So you'd like it if Gawker was trolling your feed (and those of your friends and family) for what they feel to be sufficient disclosure to post some gossip clickbait?

FireBeyond 10y ago
If I was a public figure (as most billionaires are classified, by the courts), and posted a picture of me on a public profile page, then I would be entirely disingenuous to say "you have no right to know this!". Just like in Gawker's case, decisions have consequences. Don't claim your sex life is private and no-one's business (and I have zero interest) whilst posting pictures of yourself on gay cruises. "Like" it doesn't come into it. I don't have a right to stop people doing what I don't "like".
- nickff 10y ago
  Who gets to determine if you're a public figure? Nick Denton? You might not approve of his standards or discretion. I hope you haven't posted any 'racy' pictures, or that you don't become dangerously successful. I am all for free speech, but if we are going to have libel and defamation laws (which I have mixed feelings about), everyone should be allowed to avail themselves of the opportunity to obtain compensation from those who have 'wronged' them.
- Retra 10y ago
  Your right to privacy is essentially a right to determine what private moments get shared and which do not. It is not a decision you make once (at the time you become a public figure, or when you first post a private picture publicly.) It is a decision you are allowed to make with every private moment. So this: "Just like in Gawker's case, decisions have consequences. Don't claim your sex life is private and no-one's business (and I have zero interest) whilst posting pictures of yourself on gay cruises." ...is not saying that decisions have consequences. It is saying that people who make decisions you don't agree with have no right to privacy. You are arguing that a perceived moment of hypocrisy should somehow revoke a person's ability to make decisions.

by nickff 10y ago

So you'd like it if Gawker was trolling your feed (and those of your friends and family) for what they feel to be sufficient disclosure to post some gossip clickbait?

FireBeyond 10y ago

If I was a public figure (as most billionaires are classified, by the courts), and posted a picture of me on a public profile page, then I would be entirely disingenuous to say "you have no right to know this!". Just like in Gawker's case, decisions have consequences. Don't claim your sex life is private and no-one's business (and I have zero interest) whilst posting pictures of yourself on gay cruises. "Like" it doesn't come into it. I don't have a right to stop people doing what I don't "like".

nickff 10y ago
Who gets to determine if you're a public figure? Nick Denton? You might not approve of his standards or discretion. I hope you haven't posted any 'racy' pictures, or that you don't become dangerously successful. I am all for free speech, but if we are going to have libel and defamation laws (which I have mixed feelings about), everyone should be allowed to avail themselves of the opportunity to obtain compensation from those who have 'wronged' them.
Retra 10y ago
Your right to privacy is essentially a right to determine what private moments get shared and which do not. It is not a decision you make once (at the time you become a public figure, or when you first post a private picture publicly.) It is a decision you are allowed to make with every private moment. So this: "Just like in Gawker's case, decisions have consequences. Don't claim your sex life is private and no-one's business (and I have zero interest) whilst posting pictures of yourself on gay cruises." ...is not saying that decisions have consequences. It is saying that people who make decisions you don't agree with have no right to privacy. You are arguing that a perceived moment of hypocrisy should somehow revoke a person's ability to make decisions.