←back to thread

370 points sillypuddy | 7 comments | | HN request time: 2.081s | source | bottom
Show context
throwaway5752 ◴[] No.16407479[source]
What is it that Peter Thiel said previously about women voting? What did he do to Gawker?
replies(4): >>16407710 #>>16407755 #>>16407838 #>>16409137 #
1. rpmcmurphy ◴[] No.16407710[source]
Just a friendly reminder, Gawker did not out Thiel. He had a public profile on Friendster that clearly described him as interested in men. Gawker's editor at the time remarked that people like him thought the web was this super ultra secret bat cave, and that if you posted something there it wasn't really public.
replies(2): >>16408674 #>>16409457 #
2. refurb ◴[] No.16408674[source]
You see no difference between someone sharing something on a social platform versus having that information plastered across the nation?
replies(1): >>16408871 #
3. moonka ◴[] No.16408871[source]
Social platforms are largely ways for people to plaster information across the nation. Just look at how Twitter is used these days.
replies(1): >>16408992 #
4. filoleg ◴[] No.16409457[source]
Is doxxing people using information (publicly) available online ok then? Because that's what it really is, but worse, since the doxxing entity in question is a big media publication
replies(1): >>16410195 #
5. moonka ◴[] No.16409573{4}[source]
>You'd have to be insane to actually argue (and it seems thats what you're doing)

I think it's unlikely we'll be able to have a productive conversation. Have a good day!

replies(1): >>16411302 #
6. TheAdamAndChe ◴[] No.16410195[source]
If I post on my Facebook that I am married, I don't consider it doxxing if someone else posts about that. Social media should be considered social and public.
7. hateduser2 ◴[] No.16411302{5}[source]
I don't see why not
replies(1): >>16412619 #