Comment by mnls
2 days ago
It's unacceptable that Meta did something like this.
But this doesn’t change the fact that she shouldn’t share anything personal on social media. Consider social media the new "streets". A street with dim lights or an alley that you go at 3am and shout something or showing your images/videos to strangers there. This is exactly what you should keep in mind before you share anything personal on social media.
And either way, who wants to be an unpaid Meta employee that provides any kind of content for free?
Even if you don't care much about your own privacy, sharing too much or too widely can lead to a loss of privacy for everyone.
Much of privacy law is based on a "reasonable" expectation of privacy. What counts as "reasonable" can change depending on what people in general believe it to be.
Here's an essay [1] by an appeals court judge from 2012 for some more on this.
[1] https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox-the...
I'll lay odds that the Meta employee that made the decision to do this, has an HN account. I notice how quickly this story is descending through the pages. It's already off the front page.
>I notice how quickly this story is descending through the pages. It's already off the front page.
HN doesn't even have a downvote button.
HN does have flagging for submissions which can downrank them, and this submission is marked as [flagged] so that's probably what happened here.
2 replies →
I know.
It’s fascinating to see which stories take a dive.
6 replies →
Agree with both - it's a shitty thing for the company to do.
But I do not understand why someone who's so passionate about the issues raised in the post would do something as silly as post this on a Meta-owned property at all. The end result is blindingly obvious, and anyone who doesn't expect exactly this is living in a bizarre fantasy-world, where social media (and moreso Meta-owned social media) isn't inherently evil and run/maintained by evil people (and yes, I understand the irony).