3 ms·

I’d like to know what subgenre is so specific that the attorney was sure the ad was targeted, yet is general enough to warrant its own ad, and is sensitive enou

I’d like to know what subgenre is so specific that the attorney was sure the ad was targeted, yet is general enough to warrant its own ad, and is sensitive enough that she didn’t want it named in this article.

slavboj 2y ago
Monster romance.
- doubled112 2y ago
  Is that what the kids grew up to call it?
defrost 2y ago
To paraphrase another tale; you can clerk for the supreme court for decades, but if you read just one book about sexy fun times with that cute goat from the hot yoga class . . .
mistrial9 2y ago
of course you want to know -- yet the attorney is protecting that part of the story (I agree with that stance). it is not anyone's business what she reads. Mechanisms for recording and building a dossier on each device user is exactly to make it a business.. so there are conflicting drives. If you use a device to access digital content, must your search and preference be made into the fodder of someone else's business ? Access to written material of your choice, without prejudice, is fundamental in the West. These battles were bitterly fought in previous generations.
- munchler 2y ago
  It’s certainly her right to withhold that information, but it leaves a hole in the published story that makes it much harder to assess whether her description of what happened is likely true. Right now, I’d say it’s about a 6 on a plausibility scale of 0-10. With the relevant details, she could maybe boost that to an 8… or drop it to a 4.
  - orev 2y ago
    Vetting things like this is literally the job of journalists so a story can be told while allowing the subjects a level of protection. It’s the difference between a published story and someone just making things up. As a reader, you make the credibility assessment based on trust in the author and the publication.

3 ms·

I’d like to know what subgenre is so specific that the attorney was sure the ad was targeted, yet is general enough to warrant its own ad, and is sensitive enou

by munchler 2y ago

slavboj 2y ago
Monster romance.
- doubled112 2y ago
  Is that what the kids grew up to call it?
defrost 2y ago
To paraphrase another tale; you can clerk for the supreme court for decades, but if you read just one book about sexy fun times with that cute goat from the hot yoga class . . .
mistrial9 2y ago
of course you want to know -- yet the attorney is protecting that part of the story (I agree with that stance). it is not anyone's business what she reads. Mechanisms for recording and building a dossier on each device user is exactly to make it a business.. so there are conflicting drives. If you use a device to access digital content, must your search and preference be made into the fodder of someone else's business ? Access to written material of your choice, without prejudice, is fundamental in the West. These battles were bitterly fought in previous generations.
- munchler 2y ago
  It’s certainly her right to withhold that information, but it leaves a hole in the published story that makes it much harder to assess whether her description of what happened is likely true. Right now, I’d say it’s about a 6 on a plausibility scale of 0-10. With the relevant details, she could maybe boost that to an 8… or drop it to a 4.
  - orev 2y ago
    Vetting things like this is literally the job of journalists so a story can be told while allowing the subjects a level of protection. It’s the difference between a published story and someone just making things up. As a reader, you make the credibility assessment based on trust in the author and the publication.