3 ms·
There's no doubt the content is fascinating - but they're private documents. TC had no right to publish them, and we should all feel a little guilty for in part
by hymanroth 17y ago
There's no doubt the content is fascinating - but they're private documents. TC had no right to publish them, and we should all feel a little guilty for in part legitimizing TC's decision to publish them.
- dannyr 17y agoThere are a lot of stories that were based on leaked documents. Stories on watergate, Abu Ghraib, etc. were published because somebody leaked something private. I have to admit though that they have more significance than Twitter.
- carbon8 17y agoIn those cases, there was a legitimate public interest in having them leaked and published. Very different.
- dannyr 17y agoSo who decides what is public interest or not? Twitter has millions of users. We provide some private data to them. Shouldn't we know what is being discussed privately on how they will use it?
- hymanroth 17y agoYes, if the documents only related to how twitter intends to treat UGC, then you would have a point.
- adharmad 17y agoWhen it has to do with the government, the public has a right to expect transparency. With a private organization, its different.
- barrkel 17y agoTorture? Business plans? Are you seriously suggesting that people can't tell the difference?
- hymanroth 17y agoThe was a public interest element there. The public has a right to know about those situations. We may may interested, but we have no underlying right to know everything about a private company's operations and strategy.
- barrkel 17y agoThe documents weren't leaked. They were stolen. And I can't believe you effectively equated future business plans with torture as public interest stories, with the grudging ("have to admit") qualifier that one has "more significance" than the other. This whole TC/Twitter episode has disturbed my faith in humanity, to be frank.