There's some leeway in the language there. They say they "kinda wish" that HN was a twitter account so they could block it. That's not really the same thing IMO, that could very well mean they're of two minds on the topic, or it could mean they just threw in "kinda" without thinking about it. Have they been more explicit elsewhere?
From a look at your posting history, you're just jealous because you ARE that guy, who goes out of his way to be an asshole, then pretends he's the victim, while actually being a childish bully. Your pathologically obsessive focus on certain other people's issues makes it transparently obvious to anyone who's not you, that you have a lot of your own deep issues that you haven't dealt with.
Fun times we live in where a system pretty much designed primarily for attention seeking over effective communication now can be deemed some kind of private/protected space. This is classic manipulative behavior though, make a big scene in a public forum and then claim your privacy is being invaded. If you don’t want the attention, delete it.
They never claimed their privacy was being invaded. They simply asked (allegedly? I haven't seen any actual request from them but lets just assume there is one) not to be linked to from HN.
They aren't manipulating anyone... they're just making it known they'd prefer not to be linked to from another platform.
Is this a reasonable expectation? I'm not sure -- my gut says probably not. Is it a reasonable request? IMO yes.
Contrived scenario for expository purposes: lets say I'm an expert in pre-civil war era southern cuisine. If I find out that people on stormfront are linking to and discussing my posts for their own agenda, do I have a right to make them stop? Of course not. Is it reasonable for me to say "I'd prefer if your platform didn't link to my blog"? Of course it is.
This goes against the purpose of the internet. It is not a reasonable request at all. He doesn’t pay for the bandwidth, he posted thoughts on a public forum, and people felt they were notable enough to be shared to another public audience. Reap what you sow.
In my opinion, it's a totally reasonable request. It's not a reasonable expectation, but that is a different matter. I'm not sure what the 'purpose of the internet is' but I don't think Al Gore had such a request in mind when he invented the internet.
It is a reasonable request to ask your neighbor to take down their billboard that says "THE GUY NEXT DOOR WROTE ${THIS} BLOG POST AND IS A REAL PIECE OF SHIT", even though they aren't obligated to do so. It becomes unreasonable when you expect that they take it down.
FWIW, calling somebody a piece of shit goes against personal insult laws in many countries, so in your particular example, the neighbor may in fact be obligated to take down the billboard, or at least to modify it.
FWIW there are few expressions of free speech that aren't in violation of some arbitrary law enforced by some arbitrary country. It was probably short-sighted of me to assume that my exaggerated example wouldn't be recognized as hyperbole, but honestly what is the point of this comment?
Everything depends on jurisdiction, that's the very nature of law in and of itself.
It's an interesting question though. I feel like in this case the right thing to do would be to stop linking to his twitter.
But what if he was a "bad" (in quotes) guy? Like the CEO from the recent repl.it debacle. What if he asks to stop linking to his bullying tweets? Nobody would side with him.
So.. where's the line? Is anything public fair play? Who decides if someone is bad or good? The collective internet mob? Surely nothing can go wrong with that.
Foone is more than competent enough to publish to the web with whatever access control they find agreeable. jwz is, as well, and doesn't like being linked from
HN either, for example.
Posting on Twitter publicly is consent to be linked to, regardless of what other words are said.
That doesn't mean you're not being a jerk by going against someone's preferences.
If you invite people to a party, are you the jerk for telling the person you know to be vegan that by going to the party they consent to having to eat meat? Clearly, the vegan person could simply not go to the party and not consent to it, but it still kinda makes you a jerk for even making this a problem, you could have either made a vegan meal or not invite them (and inform them why if they're a close friend maybe).
> Clearly, the vegan person could simply not go to the party and not consent to it, but it still kinda makes you a jerk for even making this a problem, you could have either made a vegan meal or not invite them
I think not inviting someone to a meat party because they're vegan is way more of a jerk move than saying "hey, I'm having a meat party, I know you're vegan but you can still come if you want" and them not coming. Give people the option to make their own choices.
Foone chose to publish things unauthenticated to the web on Twitter. That's affirmative consent to anyone on the web reading the URL by visiting it.
>That's affirmative consent to anyone on the web reading the URL by visiting it.
No it's not. It means it's out there but the wishes of a person may still go contrary. That is perfectly fine and like in the above example, maybe you should give people options instead of taking them away.
https://twitter.com/Foone/status/1310434318490034176