Wow.
It's almost like the missions of popular websites fall in line with protecting individuals against government-sponsored attacks on whistleblowers.
Witness protection isn't some flashy thing in movies. It's real and society benefits from it.
It's almost like the missions of popular websites fall in line with protecting individuals against government-sponsored attacks on whistleblowers.
Witness protection isn't some flashy thing in movies. It's real and society benefits from it.
I will not take part in some chilling-effect and/or stochastic terrorism effort (see Ping Pong Pizza incident); I understand why Google, wikipedia and Facebook wouldn't want to be party to that either.
I expect most people who hang out on HN would understand that there are no good outcomes when PII is in the wrong hands - that's not even a controversial idea.
A better analogy might be NSFL videos (people dying, mutilation etc.) I would be upset to find such a video auto playing in my feed. But I also think it’s a whole different level of offense compared to words on a page. And I know not to visit certain pages on 4chan, for example, if I want to avoid seeing such content. So do I benefit from using moderated platforms like Reddit instead? I would say yes. But then I would also suggest you need to apply the same logic to words on a page; if you don’t want to see them, stick to platforms that censor them for you.
Regarding PII, I’m not sure how you can argue that the name of a public figure is PII. The person in question is a “whistleblower” in some sense, but it’s very debatable whether he actually has any legal protections regarding others publicizing his name. As far as I know, he is not protected by WITSEC or any official, legal whistleblower statute or act. All censorship or omission of his name has been voluntary on the part of media organizations and social media platforms.
I vehemently disagree with the assumption that the act of whistleblowing transforms one into public figure.
edit: A better analogy would be a recipe for crack cocaine. I have 0 use for that knowledge, and I definitely won't spread it because at best, my audience will have no use for it either, or at worst, they'll act on it and I'll likely find their actions disagreeable. If I find a link that says "How to make crack in 10 steps", I won't click it. I won't appreciate it if someone randomly injects crack-cooking instructions in a discussion about baking soda or sodium perchlorate or whatever might be one of the ingredients.
I have no control what you (or others) propagate, as is your right - but I will not be part of it. I understand why Facebook, Wikipedia and others won't either (they too, have 1A rights).
And again, horse, barn, door. It's gone. It ain't coming back.
2. Leaving that aside, why permanently ban those who make such contributions to Wikipedia?
2. Propensity for creating such a page is a strong indication of extremely poor judgement.
Yes. You do. WISTEC covers their bases, but they can't force large organizations to play ball at a whim. Those organizations need to be willing to help. And it's heart warming to see that they are.
Citizenship has no bearing on the internal policies of private corporations. If you don't like the large corporate offerings, do without and use other services. Being a consumer of their services doesn't grant legal standing because you haven't suffered any definable injury.