JackTheMimic's avatar
JackTheMimic 2 months ago
Saying NEVER and then giving a caveat is logically incoherent. I would NEVER abuse somebody's trust (unless I lied to them.) Also what is the issue here? There is no privacy expectation. If I send an email to some person I don't know personally, why would I expect them to not publish the contents of whatever I send them? Y'all don't know the difference between data segmentation and it shows. PUBLIC - Information anyone can obtain PRIVATE - Information Trusted Parties can obtain and disseminate. SECRET - Information only the individual knows.

Replies (2)

No. It is not logically incoherent. I won't intentionally kill someone UNLESS they threaten my life or property. That's the line. That's the point of no return. I disagree. There is a privacy expectation. For example, I've bought goods from sellers on nostr. I don't ever expect those sellers to publicly broadcast my real name and address. Doing so outside of very extraordinary circumstances is straight up wrong. I understand the differences you point out much more thoroughly.
JackTheMimic's avatar
JackTheMimic 2 months ago
See the bait and switch? You said "NEVER" and now you're saying you "won't." Those two concepts are very different. Never means even if someone threatens your life or property. Again, there is no privacy expectation with an untrusted party. I trust my wife to not divulge information about me to others. SHE STILL CAN, but then she becomes an untrusted party. Do you follow? Giving your home address to some freak on the internet who sells beef jerky is also probably not the greatest privacy model. This is why you would do something like create a PO box or a secondary address not tied to your identity. "Much more thoroughly" has yet to be demonstrated.