Sign in or 

| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonymous | I disagree | 1 | Nov 8 2007, 3:58 AM EST by Zamirb | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Nov 8 2007, 3:57 AM EST
Watch
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.
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| katelyn15 | I agree with emily | 0 | Oct 18 2007, 3:32 PM EDT by katelyn15 | ||||
|
Thread started: Oct 18 2007, 3:32 PM EDT
Watch
I totally agree with Emily's statement. Today with all the availability through so much technology so much personal information is on the internet. Now it isn’t just famous people that others can retrieve personal information, now it is everyone. Emily’s statement is correct.
|
|||||||
| Laxplayer3131 | I agree/Disagree | 0 | Sep 30 2007, 9:44 PM EDT by Laxplayer3131 | ||||
|
Thread started: Sep 30 2007, 9:44 PM EDT
Watch
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.
|
|||||||
| JoeyOB0216 | Privacy | 0 | Sep 24 2007, 1:01 PM EDT by JoeyOB0216 | ||||
|
Thread started: Sep 24 2007, 1:01 PM EDT
Watch
I definitely agree with Emily's statement, but only the statement itself. It is a fact that no one can walk down the street without someone noticing what they're doing anymore. However, that doesn't give anyone the right to publicly display peoples' lives on a website. It is also ridiculous that her website contains false information on celebrities, something that is never acceptable. Emily's statement is correct, but what she is doing is ridiculous and immoral.
|
|||||||
| Anonymous | I agree | 0 | Sep 24 2007, 11:20 AM EDT by Anonymous | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Sep 24 2007, 11:20 AM EDT
Watch
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.
|
||||||
| layers43 | I disagree | 0 | Sep 24 2007, 10:09 AM EDT by layers43 | ||||
|
Thread started: Sep 24 2007, 10:09 AM EDT
Watch
I disagree with Emily's statement concerning our privacy. Everyone is entitled to their own privacy even celebrities. Emily brings up the fact that myspace, facebook, and blogs all make our lives much less private so we can expect to be noticed walking down the street. Myspace and facebook both have privacy settings to restrict people from viewing your personal information. Blogs are also what you choose to reveal about Blogs don't even need to be personal they can easily be about fashion or technology and therefore do not unleash your deepest private information. When you are walking down the street of course you will be noticed by other people on the street but hopefully it will just be as another passerby and you won't have your every move of the day texted to someone sitting infront of the computer waiting to post your every move on the internet.
|
|||||||
| nicke49 | I disagree | 0 | Sep 24 2007, 1:07 AM EDT by nicke49 | ||||
|
Thread started: Sep 24 2007, 1:07 AM EDT
Watch
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.
|
|||||||
| JJKKK | it101-013 | 0 | Sep 23 2007, 9:55 PM EDT by JJKKK | ||||
|
Thread started: Sep 23 2007, 9:55 PM EDT
Watch
I agree with Emily's statement concerning our privacy. When you walk down a public street, you can not prevent others from noticing you. Especially for those celebrities, they might catch more others' eyes. However, Emily should be in the celebrities' shoes. Don't always go poking your nose into other people's business.
|
|||||||
| jrjr9108 | I agree | 0 | Sep 23 2007, 9:33 PM EDT by jrjr9108 | ||||
|
Thread started: Sep 23 2007, 9:33 PM EDT
Watch
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 .
|
|||||||
| Anonymous | it101-013 | 0 | Sep 23 2007, 7:39 PM EDT by Anonymous | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Sep 23 2007, 7:39 PM EDT
Watch
I am in agreement with jimmy kimmel, emily should shut down that site. lawsuites are going to be sent her way. Either because of invation of privacy or because like they said this could lead to a serious stalker.
|
||||||
| Anonymous | I disagree | 2 | Sep 23 2007, 5:15 PM EDT by amiltonpires | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Sep 17 2007, 11:40 AM EDT
Watch
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.
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| BTrace | it101-013 | 1 | Sep 23 2007, 5:13 PM EDT by amiltonpires | ||||
|
Thread started: Sep 20 2007, 1:30 PM EDT
Watch
I disagree with Emily's statement that privacy is shifting. Just because technology has made it easier to invade other's privacy, does not mean that privacy itself has changed or shifted. The same standard of personal privacy respect still remains true today. Yes, technology has shifted, but rights have not!!!
Show Last Reply
|
|||||||
| amiltonpires | Amitlon/IT101-013/I Disagree | 0 | Sep 23 2007, 5:08 PM EDT by amiltonpires | ||||
|
Thread started: Sep 23 2007, 5:08 PM EDT
Watch
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.
|
|||||||
| kowalcz_ashl | it101-013 | 0 | Sep 20 2007, 1:23 PM EDT by kowalcz_ashl | ||||
|
Thread started: Sep 20 2007, 1:23 PM EDT
Watch
I agree with Emily that the internet is enabling people to access other's private information more easily but at the same time I feel people should be careful with what they do post on the internet. Facebook is the new big thing on the internet and many corporations use it to get background history on people applying for jobs,etc. There are certain privacy settings that people can't hide from the internet but the things people can hide should be paid attention to more.
|
|||||||
| samuelshon | it101-013 | 0 | Sep 19 2007, 10:21 PM EDT by samuelshon | ||||
|
Thread started: Sep 19 2007, 10:21 PM EDT
Watch
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~
|
|||||||
| Anonymous | it101-013 | 0 | Sep 19 2007, 10:17 PM EDT by Anonymous | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Sep 19 2007, 10:17 PM EDT
Watch
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~
|
||||||
| tran_vict | it101-013 | 0 | Sep 18 2007, 3:59 PM EDT by tran_vict | ||||
|
Thread started: Sep 18 2007, 3:59 PM EDT
Watch
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.
|
|||||||
| samlss13 | it101-013 | 0 | Sep 18 2007, 12:57 AM EDT by samlss13 | ||||
|
Thread started: Sep 18 2007, 12:57 AM EDT
Watch
While i do believe that there is a shifting definition of privacy, i still do not believe that one has to vicariously invade someones privacy. When someone posts a comment, picture, or thought on the internet, or in the media, they give up that right to privacy. However, if someone is doing their own thing, like enjoying a movie, it is not right to invade their privacy. I mostly agree with jimmy.
|
|||||||
| AlexHarlan | Video Response | 0 | Sep 17 2007, 5:24 PM EDT by AlexHarlan | ||||
|
Thread started: Sep 17 2007, 5:24 PM EDT
Watch
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.
|
|||||||
| tderi33 | it101-013 | 0 | Sep 17 2007, 3:09 PM EDT by tderi33 | ||||
|
Thread started: Sep 17 2007, 3:09 PM EDT
Watch
I believe at jimmy is right. I think that it is wrong for people to be so invovled in celebraties lives. Just because celebraties spend a lot of their time in the spot light, doesn't give people the right to always know where they are.
|
|||||||