3 ms·

> What obligation did Krebs have to be nice to these people? I’ll take that as an agreement that it wasn’t nice then? Regardless, I don’t think I said anywher

> What obligation did Krebs have to be nice to these people? I’ll take that as an agreement that it wasn’t nice then? Regardless, I don’t think I said anywhere that he had an obligation to be nice, only that his comments were a violation of Twitter’s TOS. Which presumably he does have an obligation to follow since he’s using their platform. > The professional ethics rules of journalism have more the opposite directionality, cautioning journalists against maintaining anonymity of sources to the detriment of the readership. Krebs is not posting their names and location as a journalistic act, he’s posting them to serve as retribution for speaking badly about something he has a personal involvement in. I don’t know what the professional ethics rules of journalism say about that, but I think it’s something most people would agree is pretty shitty.

tptacek 7y ago
As you can see upthread, it is plainly false that he violated Twitter’s TOS.
- grandmczeb 7y ago
  The only evidence I see up thread is your assertion “Twitter also explicitly exempts information available from public sources“ which is a stronger statement than Twitter’s own privacy page (“If the reported information was shared somewhere else before it was shared on Twitter [...] we may not treat this information as private”.) Twitter uses multiple factors to determine if a post is a violation, not all of which have to be satisfied, and of which being available through other sources is only one. Twitter also has a history of taking action against users who share otherwise publicly available information if the intent is malicious. While it’s a debatable point, it’s most certainly not “plainly false” that he violated the TOS; Twitter would be well within bounds to take action against his account.

tptacek 7y ago

As you can see upthread, it is plainly false that he violated Twitter’s TOS.

grandmczeb 7y ago
The only evidence I see up thread is your assertion “Twitter also explicitly exempts information available from public sources“ which is a stronger statement than Twitter’s own privacy page (“If the reported information was shared somewhere else before it was shared on Twitter [...] we may not treat this information as private”.) Twitter uses multiple factors to determine if a post is a violation, not all of which have to be satisfied, and of which being available through other sources is only one. Twitter also has a history of taking action against users who share otherwise publicly available information if the intent is malicious. While it’s a debatable point, it’s most certainly not “plainly false” that he violated the TOS; Twitter would be well within bounds to take action against his account.