Sign in or 
Share this
Showing 2 posts
|
Posted Anonymously |
I disagree
Nov 8 2007, 3:57 AM EST
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. Do you find this valuable? |
Zamirb |
1. RE: I disagree
Nov 8 2007, 3:58 AM EST
by the way, that was me, Zamir Bhimji. 'forgot to log in. sorry folks. Do you find this valuable? |
