Did Jason out you, again? How many times can someone be outed, before they're no longer "in"?
John, I'm *very* proud of my lats, ok?
Craigslist does have an easy to use anonymous function, at leaest in the housing section. But apropos of nothing really, how would one meet up for sex while safeguarding anonymity?
As ever, I hate hate hate the lack of timestamps. It's evil, evil, evil, evil.
Farber, you genius, since pretty much every post gets a comment within five minutes, the timestamp on the first comment is a good approximation of the time of the post.
we can agree that it's dumb to send personal information to strangers
I'm not sure about this. I don't know the basic conventions of CL sex. Given CL's popularity, I'd bet there are some, and that they have been relatively robust to date. I think you'd want to look at the norms of users of that service first.
If only there were someone here who was familiar with the conventions of CL personals...
8: Does anyone else here think Teo has gotten sassier since he first started commenting here?
(I mean that in a nice way, T. Now get offa my lawn, kid.)
So, I've used CL on quite a few occasions, and I'm very, very careful about safeguarding my personal information, especially since there is pretty much only one person in the world with my firstname-lastname combo, and it's me. However, most other people aren't. I probably have in various email accounts hundreds of emails with which I could crucify people, but the thought's never even crossed my mind. I even have gotten responses from people that I know/kind of know/go to school with, and I have kept all that information to myself.
A lot of times, I think dudes tend to give out a lot of personal information because they think it might increase their chances of getting a "callback," so to speak. I mean, if you can look someone up on google, see that they are a real person with a normal job, look at their picture and see that they don't look like a freak, you might be more inclined to trust them, right? What dudes are often trying to say with disclosure of personal info like name and phone number is "Hey, I trust you. You can trust me, too." Part of it is an expression of vulnerability, part of it is straight-up pragmatism: they think "hey, I'll give her more ways to get in touch with me."
The fact that Fortuny violated this implicit expression of trust by being a giant asshole is completely unforgivable. I can't believe there is anyone even trying to defend him. I mean, yes, the violence toward women expressed in a lot of the responses is problematic, but I hardly think that Fortuny was trying to expose that particular problem, given his own pretty clear misogyny (look at the LJ link ogged posted).
Part of the beauty of Craigslist is the kind of implicit social contract that most everyone seems to follow, that you respect other people. The nice thing about email is that you can be mildly persistent without coming off too much like a stalker/harrasser like you do with phone calls. Most people I've met and/or corresponded with have been very respectful, stopped emailing and/or calling when I said I wasn't interested, and generally not been a pain in the ass. Of course, I'm an excellent judge of character, so I tend to filter out the assholes right away, anyway.
The second paragraph of 11 gets it exactly right.
No, actually, all of 11 gets it exactly right.
I didn't want to render an opinion on leblanc's personal experience. But yes, I agree with everything she says.
I'm just saying, her personal experience corresponds in every way with my own.
Except that I didn't use CL. Other forms of online hookups.
he's an incredible asshole with no love for norms of confidentiality or common decency, traits which should come in handy for an IT freelancer. Well played, my boy! Well played!
That has been the part I've been marvelling at. I'm rather sceptical of the notion that employers routinely Google applicants--there are still a lot of people who basically ignore the internet and sections of the economy where it's not important--but if it's going to happen anywhere, it would be in IT. And who wouldn't immediately do a web search on an applicant who looked like such a rabbity little freak, anyway? The only conclusion that's made sense to me is that the guy is such a loser, career considerations seemed too hypothetical to bother about.
18 is the weird thing abotu this. it reminds me of those "i lost my job because i was a blogger" scandals, or employers turning people down who have pictures being drunken louts on their facebook page. not that this guy deserves to be trusted with IT type jobs, but theres a lot more room for vague discrimination with there's too much information out there about you.
I think I keep mentioning that I have only a passing familiarity with Ayn Rand, but with what I know, it sounds like he was acting unambiguously like the villain in a Rand story.
Let's roll the tape: A weak man, seething with deep-down awareness of his own inferiority, Mr. F stumbles across a free-market for sex which by all indications works quite well. Blinded by jealousy masquerading at moral outrage, F. sets about trying to control and regulate this market; he can't abide the thought that other people are having such an easy time satisfying the desires that cripple his soul.
Anyone who's read the books, how'd I do?
First off, I think the responding people were not being intelligent nor cautious(obviously).
HOWEVER, taking e-mails sent to a person (not to an e-mail list) and then publishing them may very well be breaking laws that will land Jason in a lot of hot water:
To quote one source:
The second, more relevant claim, is "public disclosure of private facts." This Findlaw article on the Washingtonienne scandal sums it up nicely:
The disclosure must be public. The facts must be private. The plaintiff must be identified. The publication must be "highly offensive." And there must be an "absence of legitimate concern to the public" with respect to the publication.
If I were these guys, the last thing I would do is hunt him down and hurt him. I would however organize everyone and run him through litigation. And I would want it to be bad enough that he loses what he has and even much of what he will get in the future.
Jason said on his blog (to one of the people): "Life isn't Fair"
I hope he remembers that as he sells off his possessions and has his future wages garnisheed.
If the mass media gets hold of this, his employer may feel his services are no longer needed as they will not want the bad press. I sure would not want to deal with a company with him as an employee.
"Life isn't fair Jason." Just remember that.
And the funny part - he is writing his own evidence against him.
His site suggests pretty strongly that the guy isn't worth suing, and litigation is a piss-poor way of obtaining vindication anyway. I'm thinking either he gets away with it (other than whatever reputational damage he's done himself) or somebody beats the ever-loving shit out of him.
You can sue someone and win a judgement but collecting is a whole different issue.