4 ms·

Does the press have an ethical duty to out powerful gays in tech?

3 points by jbk 15y ago

russell 15y ago
Christ no! Do they have an obligation to out heterosexuals who engage in adult consensual kinky sex? Same answer. I think even Republican politicians deserve a little privacy. :-) How about outing corruption, influence pedaling, and questionable campaign contributions? EDIT: I finally read the article. The whole thing is a perversion of ethics. The idea that a journalist should out someone who is gay to celebrate gayness is wrong. If the person wants it known, let him do it himself. I suppose an exception is a gay bashing politician/activist who is in the closet, but that is just exposing hypocrisy. Same would be true of an anti-drug evangelist who is a secret drug dealer.
- rhizome 15y ago
  The idea that a journalist should out someone who is gay to celebrate gayness is wrong. In fact, the idea that someone should be outed for the benefit of gays is the exact origin of the concept of "outing." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outing#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outing#History
benologist 15y ago
You (sadly) have to read this crap to believe it, it's just incredible. - Unless they report Tim Cook's gay they're saying he's straight - What can be written about his sexuality when he doesn't tell them, 'nothing' obviously isn't an option because of the previous point - Therefore they ask is Cook is being unethical by not telling them about his sex life
_delirium 15y ago
This article is pretty heavy on speculation, but even leaving that aside, I don't think the underlying question is one that's likely to be resolved by debate on this specific point. It's essentially an instance of the broader question of how ethics should balance individual versus collective benefit (when, if ever, is it ethically permitted, or perhaps even required, to do something "unethical" seeming to one person if it benefits many more people?), which ties into debates over things like utilitarianism.
pedalpete 15y ago
Ars Technica should be ashamed of themselves for 1) considering to write a piece like this 2) actually editing it for publishing 3) actually publishing it. The end result may be that many people will start to believe that Tim Cook is gay. How many people here even thought about Cook's personal life before reading the article? Does anybody think his (or anybody elses) sexuality matters? If so, I'd like to hear why. The press needs to start taking responsibility for what they are publishing. When a publication openly discusses things like 'and a recent tasteless photograph that I will not link ', or 'Whether or not you agree with what Gawker published in January', providing a link or not, the reader is likely inclined to search for said article or photo. It is as bad as writing the initial article yourself. Though I don't see a way out of this, I think that in this situation, Ars took the wrong route, and I hope their editors pull the article.

3 points by jbk 15y ago

Christ no! Do they have an obligation to out heterosexuals who engage in adult consensual kinky sex? Same answer. I think even Republican politicians deserve a little privacy. :-) How about outing corruption, influence pedaling, and questionable campaign contributions? EDIT: I finally read the article. The whole thing is a perversion of ethics. The idea that a journalist should out someone who is gay to celebrate gayness is wrong. If the person wants it known, let him do it himself. I suppose an exception is a gay bashing politician/activist who is in the closet, but that is just exposing hypocrisy. Same would be true of an anti-drug evangelist who is a secret drug dealer.

rhizome 15y ago
The idea that a journalist should out someone who is gay to celebrate gayness is wrong. In fact, the idea that someone should be outed for the benefit of gays is the exact origin of the concept of "outing." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outing#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outing#History

benologist 15y ago

You (sadly) have to read this crap to believe it, it's just incredible. - Unless they report Tim Cook's gay they're saying he's straight - What can be written about his sexuality when he doesn't tell them, 'nothing' obviously isn't an option because of the previous point - Therefore they ask is Cook is being unethical by not telling them about his sex life

_delirium 15y ago

This article is pretty heavy on speculation, but even leaving that aside, I don't think the underlying question is one that's likely to be resolved by debate on this specific point. It's essentially an instance of the broader question of how ethics should balance individual versus collective benefit (when, if ever, is it ethically permitted, or perhaps even required, to do something "unethical" seeming to one person if it benefits many more people?), which ties into debates over things like utilitarianism.

pedalpete 15y ago

Ars Technica should be ashamed of themselves for 1) considering to write a piece like this 2) actually editing it for publishing 3) actually publishing it. The end result may be that many people will start to believe that Tim Cook is gay. How many people here even thought about Cook's personal life before reading the article? Does anybody think his (or anybody elses) sexuality matters? If so, I'd like to hear why. The press needs to start taking responsibility for what they are publishing. When a publication openly discusses things like 'and a recent tasteless photograph that I will not link ', or 'Whether or not you agree with what Gawker published in January', providing a link or not, the reader is likely inclined to search for said article or photo. It is as bad as writing the initial article yourself. Though I don't see a way out of this, I think that in this situation, Ars took the wrong route, and I hope their editors pull the article.