4 ms·

The central complaint isn't "distaste" because you can't call for someone to be banned because of a "distaste". "Jesse Singal has distributed private medical i

by Levitz 7mo ago

The central complaint isn't "distaste" because you can't call for someone to be banned because of a "distaste". "Jesse Singal has distributed private medical information on Bluesky without the consent of the patient" translates to publishing a quote from a patient included in a therapist's letter of support for hormones. The problem in this situation is that the complaint itself as well as the whole drama surrounding the person is an exercise of harassment towards Singal. In this context, I don't think that saying "waffles" is out of order. I'm not sure of what else can be done about crybullying, since by its very nature innocent bystanders would be surely affected if action was taken against those complaining.

mossTechnician 7mo ago
Distributing private medical information without consent is a violation of Bluesky's terms. And to me, that sounds like a much more concrete example of someone being a bully.
- zdragnar 7mo ago
  Is it private if it is in a public affidavit?
  - mossTechnician 7mo ago
    In my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably still be considered private, even if it was made publicly accessible. But even if not, Singal says the same leaker directly contacted him with a new leak, which he also published.
    - naasking 7mo ago
      > In my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably be considered private. How is that relevant to BSky's terms of service? The information was public and did not identify the person. > But even if not, Singal says the same leaker directly contacted him with a new leak, which he also published. I notice that you didn't say whether this new leak was private information, or whether it was also already public knowledge, or whether it in any way identified a person.
      - mossTechnician 7mo ago
        > I notice that you didn't say whether this new leak was private information The new leak was, according to journalist Jesse Singal himself, absolutely private information.
        naasking 7mo ago
        Please cite Singal's statement and let's see what he actually said.
        mossTechnician 7mo ago
        I think this entire thread has run its course; if it's not this detail, it'll be another, as a few others have already moved goalposts further down the discussion than the ones you're setting here. But if you wish to sate personal curiosity, it is in his Substack, linked from the first link I posted, which was itself from the link posted by its GP.
        naasking 7mo ago
        The only thing that seems remotely related to your claims is this: When the office of Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey began an investigation, [Reed] said she handed over the spreadsheet, after scrubbing out the personally identifying information that could spark HIPAA problems. She shared a copy of it with me as well — it contains 17 alleged detransitioners or desisters and 60 allegedly worrisome cases. What's your problem with what happened exactly? Is it your position that your "private information" cannot be used, ever, to expose what some see as a medical scandal, even though it cannot identify you or in any way be associated with you? What does "private" even mean to you if sharing this dataset did not violate HIPAA?
    - easterncalculus 7mo ago
      > In my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably still be considered private. I'd love to see the limitations of this opinion you definitely hold honestly and without favor. You started by posting a change.org petition that links to a deleted post - in other words an "appeal to petition" that has no evidence. Now you are suggesting there is another leak that was published (presumably not mentioned in this petition?) that also has no evidence. Where is the evidence? Everything from an actual search engine request for these posts (which to be clear, are deleted) suggests that these are anonymized and public, and contain no identifying information.
- Levitz 7mo ago
  >“Don’t use Bluesky Social to break the law or cause harm to others,” Is this, quoted in the change.org, the relevant line? The law was not broken, it is also fairly evident that the intention was not to "cause harm to others", nor has any harm has seemingly come upon the patient for this (it requires a huge stretch of imagination to think of a case in which it could)

by Levitz 7mo ago

mossTechnician 7mo ago

Distributing private medical information without consent is a violation of Bluesky's terms. And to me, that sounds like a much more concrete example of someone being a bully.

zdragnar 7mo ago
Is it private if it is in a public affidavit?
- mossTechnician 7mo ago
  In my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably still be considered private, even if it was made publicly accessible. But even if not, Singal says the same leaker directly contacted him with a new leak, which he also published.
  - naasking 7mo ago
    > In my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably be considered private. How is that relevant to BSky's terms of service? The information was public and did not identify the person. > But even if not, Singal says the same leaker directly contacted him with a new leak, which he also published. I notice that you didn't say whether this new leak was private information, or whether it was also already public knowledge, or whether it in any way identified a person.
    - mossTechnician 7mo ago
      > I notice that you didn't say whether this new leak was private information The new leak was, according to journalist Jesse Singal himself, absolutely private information.
      - naasking 7mo ago
        Please cite Singal's statement and let's see what he actually said.
        mossTechnician 7mo ago
        I think this entire thread has run its course; if it's not this detail, it'll be another, as a few others have already moved goalposts further down the discussion than the ones you're setting here. But if you wish to sate personal curiosity, it is in his Substack, linked from the first link I posted, which was itself from the link posted by its GP.
        naasking 7mo ago
        The only thing that seems remotely related to your claims is this: When the office of Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey began an investigation, [Reed] said she handed over the spreadsheet, after scrubbing out the personally identifying information that could spark HIPAA problems. She shared a copy of it with me as well — it contains 17 alleged detransitioners or desisters and 60 allegedly worrisome cases. What's your problem with what happened exactly? Is it your position that your "private information" cannot be used, ever, to expose what some see as a medical scandal, even though it cannot identify you or in any way be associated with you? What does "private" even mean to you if sharing this dataset did not violate HIPAA?
  - easterncalculus 7mo ago
    > In my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably still be considered private. I'd love to see the limitations of this opinion you definitely hold honestly and without favor. You started by posting a change.org petition that links to a deleted post - in other words an "appeal to petition" that has no evidence. Now you are suggesting there is another leak that was published (presumably not mentioned in this petition?) that also has no evidence. Where is the evidence? Everything from an actual search engine request for these posts (which to be clear, are deleted) suggests that these are anonymized and public, and contain no identifying information.
Levitz 7mo ago
>“Don’t use Bluesky Social to break the law or cause harm to others,” Is this, quoted in the change.org, the relevant line? The law was not broken, it is also fairly evident that the intention was not to "cause harm to others", nor has any harm has seemingly come upon the patient for this (it requires a huge stretch of imagination to think of a case in which it could)