3 ms·
"It's quite inappropriate to speculate on a person's private health matters in a public forum." I don't agree at all. And what are you basing that on? Is there
by larrys 12y ago
"It's quite inappropriate to speculate on a person's private health matters in a public forum."
I don't agree at all. And what are you basing that on? Is there some "rules of public forum" that has been agreed upon and accepted by the internet rule setting committee? Is there anything in the HN faq that states this?
Even more importantly, Gates is a very public and well known person. I'm not making comments on some unknown individual who works in marketing at some YC company (or Microsoft for that matter). Or an HN commenter.
It's totally appropriate to speculate on his health [1] (and in fact the media does this all the time about many well known people). That is not the same as saying people on HN (such as yourself) might not find it inappropriate (obviously I'm being downvoted so many people reading this particular post don't seem to agree with me.)
Lastly, the richest or near richest man in the world doesn't need to be protected from some anonymous person's speculation.
[1] Not the same as saying HN likes the speculation or it's appropriate for HN. But you didn't say that. You said "health matters in a public forum".
- mtdewcmu 12y agoIndeed. The courts have ruled that it's almost impossible to slander or defame someone as famous as Bill Gates.
- biot 12y agoThe word "forum" is a Latin word, and I'm using it in its traditional meaning (ie: a "public venue"), not in the recent "internet message board thingy" meaning. And I think I'll just have to disagree with you as (1) I don't consider today's media as demonstrating exemplary values, and (2) it's not about whether or not a wealthy/public person needs protection; it's about whether a particular activity is right. Obviously my value system is different from yours in that regard.