attractive as she is, I think Gawker Stalker made a poor choice in having her represent them in this debate.
The company she works for not only promotes false information, but it breaches privacy and exploits it, putting people at risk of harm, and further, it is mostly useless. She states that gawker usually does not lead people to the celebrities because it has a delay, which translates to "the site is actually basically useless.."

She does not do her job as an editor, and she even tries to justify her/her company's actions with the excuse that it has been going on for four years, and nothing has happened yet.. this is a poor excuse because it only means that the site has been getting away with all these misdemeanors for four years.. If a convict were loose for four years, he would still be a convict.

Privacy is something we can easily maintain. by keeping information from the web, we can protect ourselves from potential harm. Myspace and Facebook- common targets of privacy issues, both contain privacy setting to help protect individuals. As for slander, it is an inevitable effect of the free flow of information, however, it is up to editors such as Emily to keep these incidents to a minimum, but as Kimmel says, stalker.com does no editing. In these sorts of cases, I think the only thing that applies is the Golden Rule. If people want to protect themselves, they shouldn't put others in harms way.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Show Last Reply

On the subject of privacy and its shift in our society today, i would have to agree that our ideas of privacy are shifting, but not to the degree of where paprazzi and sites like Gawker Stawker believe it is. With the development of myspace, facebook and different photosites, we are allowing people to see deeper into our lives with pictures and bios. But allowing sites to tell people more things such as location or personal information is just immoral. People deserve privacy. And even celebrities deserve privacy, for money is no excuse to bombard people and invade their privacy.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

I agree that privacy is Something that is hard to have in modern times. With the growing technology and websites such a facebook and myspace, no one has privacy anymore. People need to be more cautious of what they allow others to see. Also with the advancement of technology, it is a lot easier for people to hack onto accounts and other private, personal things.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

I disagree with Emily's statement . If people were to see you walking down the street going about your business no one would actually record and broadcast what you are doing to the general public. This only happens to celebrities and is not necessarily a very nice thing to do in the first place.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

I party agree with what Emily has to say. With all the sites like Facebook and Myspace, somebody that you do not even know can know pretty much everything about you, they can see pictures, hobbies, and sometimes even phone numbers. The thing that i disagree with is that if somebody doesn't want anybody to get private info about them, then that is by all means possible, one does not need to put all that personal information on the internet. Plus, if somebody is walking down they street, nobody normal is going to follow their every move .

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

I'm not going to walk down the street with somebody in the backround text messaging some websight telling them that they saw me. Emily is feeding into the obnoxious culture of celebrity obsession, and she is walking a fine line between reporting and stalking.

1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

Show Last Reply

I disagree with Emily Gloud. Jimmy Kimmel completely tore up Emily Gloud, the editor of Gawker.com, and with reason. The two go back in forth in a debate of where to draw the line between the protection of privacy and what is public information of celebrities. But what Gloud has forgotten is that celebrities are still human beings and the media should respect the rights of all human beings. Celebrities do have certain special circumstances to live under. However, this does not give the media a legitimate excuse to create lies about the life of an individual, as discussed by Jimmy Kimmel in his own experience with Gawker. Com. Gloud looked like a complete idiot as she took shots from all ends of the CNN staff. She made no valid point to as why Gawker.com should even be legal. She is the editor of a company that makes money from harassing people. Gawker should reconsider its motives.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

I agree with Emily that privacy is shifting. However, the users of "myspace" "facebook" etc. still have some power to control their identity. There are several options within these programs that help people keep their privacy. But, at the same time, it's the users that are posting up pictures and all their information for everyone to see. So, I think it works both ways. People could be safe by not posting too much unneccesary information. And about the celebrities, I think this woman is contradicting herself. She talks about how she wants people to view celebrities as real people, but then why would there be websites? There's no websites for "normal" people. dumb~

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

I feel as though there is a shifting definition of privacy, but I also believe that people allow this to happen due to the photos or videos that they may post on their site and a classic exampled of that would be on myspace. Gossip can spread much faster now that there is the internet and instant messaging. Emily Gould's statement that it's great that celebrities aren't put on a pedestal because people view them as real people is contradictory to her entire website. What she is doing is raising the pedestal that these celebrities are on and makes it more difficult for them to live regular lives, especially since they could be mobbed by a group of people even when they run errands.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

I partly agree with Emily. There is a shifting definition of privacy, and technology is slowing diminishing people's rights as far as keeping things to themselves. I do not, however, agree with her statement that no one has the right to walk down the street and not be watched. Just as everyone has the right to post personal information on blogs and sites like MySpace and Facebook, they should also have the right to refrain from this and keep their personal lives private. I agree with Jimmy, her "stalker" tool is an application that allows pyschopaths to track down celebrities, and that is an irresponsible use of technology.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?