4 ms·

> 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 so

by 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.

4 ms·

> 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 so

by stale2002 6y ago

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.