3 ms·
This is not an equivalency. You freely put photos of yourself on the internet and they use them. Don't like it, don't publish it. This is 95% of what's going o
by aaron695 7y ago
This is not an equivalency.
You freely put photos of yourself on the internet and they use them. Don't like it, don't publish it. This is 95% of what's going on here.
Gawker took private information on Peter Thiel that he did not want public, and had not made public.
Hulk Hogan was worse - "at trial he claimed that the videotaping was without his knowledge or consent"
I think it's great a company is doing this openly. Do you think the TLA aren't? We also know private Russian companies have been doing this for years. This is a good move towards privacy.
- nolongerlowres 7y agoI don’t believe publicly posted photos are the privacy issue at hand here. Facebook tracks your activity online and sell it to advertisers regardless of your consent, even if you’ve never created an account in your life. That’s the privacy issue (amongst other things).
- FireBeyond 7y agoUh, not so much. Hogan’s situation was worse, to be sure. But Thiel’s PROFILE PICTURE on a couple of sites was him, shirtless, on gay cruises. Saying that “he wanted that private, not public” flies in the face of pure common sense. Apropos of that, courts have long held that billionaires have reduced rights to privacy due to their “overwhelming influence on public affairs and events”. That’s why Thiel backed Hogan’s lawsuit (and to my mind, interfered unfairly), and was not able to sue Gawker.