Posting messages word for word from neighborhood list serves

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between what is possible, and what is shitty to do.

Sure you have the ability to broadcast a private or semi-private email message to a much larger audience, but all things being equal it's generally a shitty thing to do.

If the only response you have is "that's naive" then you sound like a huge douchebag.

\

What makes you think an email to a LIST of people is private or even semi-private? And how is it douchebaggery to point out to you and those who think like you that you are being naive if you expect privacy on PUBLIC internet lists??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have mixed feelings about the issue. On the one hand it seems thoughtless, because even though the names were redacted, those on the listserv could trace it back. But they have the information anyway. I can also see feeling that it is crappy to disseminate the info further. But the people on the listserv were quite possibly doing that anyway through verbal recounting. I know I would have mentioned a post like that to a few friends and possibly my mom without identifying the poster, because it struck me as really out there. But it would not have been disseminated word for word, and certainly not to as wide of an audience.

But the person who posted it to the listserv intended for it to be read by the masses.

Sorry she got ridiculed here. But, that's the risk you take when you go public with your rants.

[Anonymous]

IMO it depends on the terms of service/user agreement of the listserve.

If it doesn't say "thou shalt not repost listserve posts elsewhere", then it's fair game as long as private information is not revealed (name, email address, etc.).

When you post to a listserve, you "publish" (in the legal sense) your views and message. It's not private and there's no expectation of privacy unless the listserve's rules explicitly say so IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMO it depends on the terms of service/user agreement of the listserve.

If it doesn't say "thou shalt not repost listserve posts elsewhere", then it's fair game as long as private information is not revealed (name, email address, etc.).

When you post to a listserve, you "publish" (in the legal sense) your views and message. It's not private and there's no expectation of privacy unless the listserve's rules explicitly say so IMO.

And even if the listserv rules say so, you don't really have any reasonable expectation privacy. We see this time-and-time again.

[Anonymous]

If you email something to a group of people, most of whom are strangers, there's a good chance it'll go public. Would I have posted it? Probably not, but the author shouldn't be surprised. Don't be naive, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO it depends on the terms of service/user agreement of the listserve.

If it doesn't say "thou shalt not repost listserve posts elsewhere", then it's fair game as long as private information is not revealed (name, email address, etc.).

When you post to a listserve, you "publish" (in the legal sense) your views and message. It's not private and there's no expectation of privacy unless the listserve's rules explicitly say so IMO.

And even if the listserv rules say so, you don't really have any reasonable expectation privacy. We see this time-and-time again.

PP here ... true, but at least there you have a statement of "community" norms fwiw. Absent that, as long as private info's not revealed I don't see any basis, really, to complain about a listserve post being "republished."

[Anonymous]

17:32 again ... I meant the "reasonable expectation of privacy" if a listserve forbids reposting, in an informal way, not that it is or could be legally binding IMO -- I agree with that.

It's another case of "don't put anything on the internet that you don't want others to see."

[Anonymous]

I have mixed feelings about the issue. On the one hand it seems thoughtless, because even though the names were redacted, those on the listserv could trace it back. But they have the information anyway. I can also see feeling that it is crappy to disseminate the info further. But the people on the listserv were quite possibly doing that anyway through verbal recounting. I know I would have mentioned a post like that to a few friends and possibly my mom without identifying the poster, because it struck me as really out there. But it would not have been disseminated word for word, and certainly not to as wide of an audience.


But the person who posted it to the listserv intended for it to be read by the masses.

Sorry she got ridiculed here. But, that's the risk you take when you go public with your rants.

Yeah, I can definitely see that side of it. But the other thought I have is that although the listserv is public, it is a little different in that, at least on my neighborhood listserv, people identify themselves by name. This cuts down enormously on the number of nasty responses. So the poster would likely not have been publicly ridiculed, although people would have definitely thought to themselves that she was insane, and likely discussed it among their friends in the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have mixed feelings about the issue. On the one hand it seems thoughtless, because even though the names were redacted, those on the listserv could trace it back. But they have the information anyway. I can also see feeling that it is crappy to disseminate the info further. But the people on the listserv were quite possibly doing that anyway through verbal recounting. I know I would have mentioned a post like that to a few friends and possibly my mom without identifying the poster, because it struck me as really out there. But it would not have been disseminated word for word, and certainly not to as wide of an audience.


But the person who posted it to the listserv intended for it to be read by the masses.

Sorry she got ridiculed here. But, that's the risk you take when you go public with your rants.

Yeah, I can definitely see that side of it. But the other thought I have is that although the listserv is public, it is a little different in that, at least on my neighborhood listserv, people identify themselves by name. This cuts down enormously on the number of nasty responses. So the poster would likely not have been publicly ridiculed, although people would have definitely thought to themselves that she was insane, and likely discussed it among their friends in the neighborhood.

+1

I agree that it is different in the way in which this was dissected. People don't really 'dig in' when their name and personal address is attached. On the anonymous threads, all is unleashed and maybe she was a bit naïve to think it wouldn't travel the world's length on the Internet. Then again, I would never expect someone who KNOWS me or an acquaintance to take it upon themselves to smear me further. Just rubbing it in...a...little...further. And then laugh about

[Anonymous]

I was going to say then laugh about how funny it was later. No guilt at all? Classless. Although- I confess I was having fun with the gifs...

[Anonymous]

Well, I get the sense that the author of that missive may in fact be participating in this thread or maybe even started.

If so, I hope this was a lesson well learned, not only about what can happen to content you put on the Internet, but also about resisting the urge to send missives like that in the first place to a bunch of people. A little self-reflection is probably in order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have mixed feelings about the issue. On the one hand it seems thoughtless, because even though the names were redacted, those on the listserv could trace it back. But they have the information anyway. I can also see feeling that it is crappy to disseminate the info further. But the people on the listserv were quite possibly doing that anyway through verbal recounting. I know I would have mentioned a post like that to a few friends and possibly my mom without identifying the poster, because it struck me as really out there. But it would not have been disseminated word for word, and certainly not to as wide of an audience.

But the person who posted it to the listserv intended for it to be read by the masses.

Sorry she got ridiculed here. But, that's the risk you take when you go public with your rants.

+1

When you hit send, when you publicly disseminate your rants, you abdicate your right to control privacy. When it's in someone else's inbox, it no longer belongs to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between what is possible, and what is shitty to do.

Sure you have the ability to broadcast a private or semi-private email message to a much larger audience, but all things being equal it's generally a shitty thing to do.

If the only response you have is "that's naive" then you sound like a huge douchebag.

\

What makes you think an email to a LIST of people is private or even semi-private? And how is it douchebaggery to point out to you and those who think like you that you are being naive if you expect privacy on PUBLIC internet lists??

The fact is that there is a huge difference between things are technically public but not accessible to a lot of people, and things that have been broadcast to the world.

For example, the way I look when I go out in public is obviously public information, but if you take a picture of me and post on it a popular internet site with a caption that mocks me, I will think you are a douchebag.

[Anonymous]

Pinecone lady shouldn't have sent the email in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between what is possible, and what is shitty to do.

Sure you have the ability to broadcast a private or semi-private email message to a much larger audience, but all things being equal it's generally a shitty thing to do.

If the only response you have is "that's naive" then you sound like a huge douchebag.

\

What makes you think an email to a LIST of people is private or even semi-private? And how is it douchebaggery to point out to you and those who think like you that you are being naive if you expect privacy on PUBLIC internet lists??

The fact is that there is a huge difference between things are technically public but not accessible to a lot of people, and things that have been broadcast to the world.

For example, the way I look when I go out in public is obviously public information, but if you take a picture of me and post on it a popular internet site with a caption that mocks me, I will think you are a douchebag.

understood but an imperfect analogy ... in your example, you're not effectively saying "look at me, listen to me!". But when you post publicly on a listserve, you are. The distinction matters IMO, though it may not to your reaction.