4 ms·

You are setting your own personal threshold here's that many people won't agree with. She put herself out there as a paid blogger with her name attached to her

You are setting your own personal threshold here's that many people won't agree with. She put herself out there as a paid blogger with her name attached to her work. Shes as much a public figure in her niche circle as pewddiepie is a public figure in his niche circle. The money difference is irrelevant, the NASA scientists who made that announcement yesterday are much closer to her earning level than they are to pewdiepie and much more well known than either. She has the same platforms available to post her rebuttal as pewdiepie does, the medium she used for all her articles.

pm24601 10y ago
> You are setting your own personal threshold here's that many people won't agree with. Lets look at US law. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure) A public figure (like Pewpiedie) " A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[1] The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure." The marathoner is not a celebrity nor does she base her livelihood on being a public figure. From a U.S. libel/slander perspective there is a clear legal distinction - its not my opinion.