5 ms·

> When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile. Everyone I know has dove into th

> When they post in public, they are not, in their minds, giving people permission to cyberstalk them and build out a profile. Everyone I know has dove into the social histories of new dates, friends, coworkers, etc. I simply cannot believe that the "normal public" doesn't recognize that their behavior, which they discuss with friends, can be replicated by others.

maxbond 1y ago
Of course they do. I never said otherwise. You can know about a downside to doing something, still decide to do it, and still publicly say that there shouldn't be that downside. That doesn't even make you a hypocrite. Sometimes I drive places. I know that it's dangerous. I accept that risk. But I'll still say people shouldn't be reckless drivers and that we should make the roads safer. And I certainly am not, by accepting the risk of driving, giving someone permission to drive drunk and wreck into me. That'd be a crazy interpretation, right? So what's the difference here?
- satvikpendem 1y ago
  The point they're making is that you personally perceive it to be a downside while most (the general public) do not.
  - maxbond 1y ago
    I've never met someone who thinks social media is an unalloyed good. I also don't see how you can simultaneously argue they're aware of it and okay with it, but also their position is founded in their ignorance.
    - satvikpendem 1y ago
      > unalloyed good I'm talking specifically about restaurant stalking, not all of the mechanisms of social media. > I also don't see how you can simultaneously argue they're aware of it and okay with it, but also their position is founded in their ignorance. Wrong person, I am clarifying vineyardmike's point, not my own. Even still, one can know something in the abstract, that their profile can also be stalked, but not in the particulars, that someone they dislike is actively stalking them.

maxbond 1y ago

Of course they do. I never said otherwise. You can know about a downside to doing something, still decide to do it, and still publicly say that there shouldn't be that downside. That doesn't even make you a hypocrite. Sometimes I drive places. I know that it's dangerous. I accept that risk. But I'll still say people shouldn't be reckless drivers and that we should make the roads safer. And I certainly am not, by accepting the risk of driving, giving someone permission to drive drunk and wreck into me. That'd be a crazy interpretation, right? So what's the difference here?

satvikpendem 1y ago
The point they're making is that you personally perceive it to be a downside while most (the general public) do not.
- maxbond 1y ago
  I've never met someone who thinks social media is an unalloyed good. I also don't see how you can simultaneously argue they're aware of it and okay with it, but also their position is founded in their ignorance.
  - satvikpendem 1y ago
    > unalloyed good I'm talking specifically about restaurant stalking, not all of the mechanisms of social media. > I also don't see how you can simultaneously argue they're aware of it and okay with it, but also their position is founded in their ignorance. Wrong person, I am clarifying vineyardmike's point, not my own. Even still, one can know something in the abstract, that their profile can also be stalked, but not in the particulars, that someone they dislike is actively stalking them.