4 ms·

He’s not an officer of a publicly traded corporation, and has no fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It’s a completely different case from being doxxed.

mmcwilliams 6y ago
That wasn't your distinction, though. You used the term "public figure" and I think it's a bit dramatic to say that he was doxxed when he wrote under his full name until 2013, references those writings frequently and used that full name on the blog as recently as last year. Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't. Don't put words in the other person's mouth. Instead, what people are saying is that if someone has a huge amount of power, then we don't really care about their privacy. Someone running a blog does not have a huge amount of power. Someone running a trillion dollar company, or running or president, or whatever, does have a huge amount of power. Thats the difference.
  - mmcwilliams 6y ago
    Not sure how I was "putting words in the other person's mouth" by making that statement. I agree that Steve Jobs is more powerful than even an influential blogger, but they are both public figures. Who exactly is allowed to do the calculus about how much private information is appropriate to publish about someone according to their level of power? To me it seems to be a binary: are they a public figure or not. When it's a breach of journalistic ethics to publish information about a blogger that's provided on or linked to from said blog (I think it is a breach, he made a specific request not to) it's much more egregious to publish an apparently forged health record of a CEO. At no point do I think that not caring about someone's privacy means it's acceptable to publish false information about them.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > To me it seems to be a binary It doesn't have to be binary. Instead, we can say that the more power someone has, the more it is ok to reveal info about them. You can pick public figure, but I wouldn't do that. > Who exactly is allowed to do the calculus Anyone at all times. That's how society works. Everyone has their own opinions. I don't agree with your binary opinion though. > Of a CEO CEOs have lots of power. They don't need to be protected as much as everyone else in the world.
- 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
  > Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't. The real answer is that it depends. If a public figure is abusing their position, then yes, it is in the public interest to know about this abuse of power. Imagine for a second if every politician’s financial history for all of their financial accounts were on an immutable ledger. That is something that is desirable, though it violates those individuals’ privacy. In this case we would say the public interest supersedes their right to privacy.
  - mmcwilliams 6y ago
    It seems to be a very fluid standard, for sure, but there are other variables that are brought up in these discussions beyond whether or not a public figure is abusing their position. Who is publishing? How well-liked the public figure is and by who? If the standard boils down to there being a journalistic interest in publishing relevant information about a public figure in relation to their abuse of power then I'm not sure how possibly-faked medical records pass that test.

mmcwilliams 6y ago

That wasn't your distinction, though. You used the term "public figure" and I think it's a bit dramatic to say that he was doxxed when he wrote under his full name until 2013, references those writings frequently and used that full name on the blog as recently as last year. Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't.

stale2002 6y ago
> Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't. Don't put words in the other person's mouth. Instead, what people are saying is that if someone has a huge amount of power, then we don't really care about their privacy. Someone running a blog does not have a huge amount of power. Someone running a trillion dollar company, or running or president, or whatever, does have a huge amount of power. Thats the difference.
- mmcwilliams 6y ago
  Not sure how I was "putting words in the other person's mouth" by making that statement. I agree that Steve Jobs is more powerful than even an influential blogger, but they are both public figures. Who exactly is allowed to do the calculus about how much private information is appropriate to publish about someone according to their level of power? To me it seems to be a binary: are they a public figure or not. When it's a breach of journalistic ethics to publish information about a blogger that's provided on or linked to from said blog (I think it is a breach, he made a specific request not to) it's much more egregious to publish an apparently forged health record of a CEO. At no point do I think that not caring about someone's privacy means it's acceptable to publish false information about them.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > To me it seems to be a binary It doesn't have to be binary. Instead, we can say that the more power someone has, the more it is ok to reveal info about them. You can pick public figure, but I wouldn't do that. > Who exactly is allowed to do the calculus Anyone at all times. That's how society works. Everyone has their own opinions. I don't agree with your binary opinion though. > Of a CEO CEOs have lots of power. They don't need to be protected as much as everyone else in the world.
0x8BADF00D 6y ago
> Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't. The real answer is that it depends. If a public figure is abusing their position, then yes, it is in the public interest to know about this abuse of power. Imagine for a second if every politician’s financial history for all of their financial accounts were on an immutable ledger. That is something that is desirable, though it violates those individuals’ privacy. In this case we would say the public interest supersedes their right to privacy.
- mmcwilliams 6y ago
  It seems to be a very fluid standard, for sure, but there are other variables that are brought up in these discussions beyond whether or not a public figure is abusing their position. Who is publishing? How well-liked the public figure is and by who? If the standard boils down to there being a journalistic interest in publishing relevant information about a public figure in relation to their abuse of power then I'm not sure how possibly-faked medical records pass that test.