The most often used tool to justify malice is the morality. Last week a man named Jason decided he'd do a little experiment.
In a nutshell Jason did the following:
1. Steal a sexually explicit ad from another cityBut you already know this.
2. Post it on the Seattle CraigsList
3. Proceed to publish every response complete with photos and names an addresses of the responders.
Everyone and their brother has been to Jason's site or others and read the names and emails from these men.
I refuse to read the site. I live in Seattle. If anyone I know is on there, I don't want to know. It's just voyerism in a cloak of morality.
I can send you to this wired article which is right-on ... but is more
For the record, I think it's wrong to knowingly harm innocent people. I agree with Ryan Singel and Kevin Poulsen.
People in the comments justify Jason's malice with arguments that center around:
1. Responding to the ad removed their right to privacyMalice, in my mind, is never justified. It is small and wrong. You can rationalize anything. But rationalizations are not justifications, they are attempt to excuse.
2. The men should be publicized because they weren't moral
3. The men should be publicized because they already had girlfriends
4. The men should be publicized because they were too trusting
5. The men should be publicized because they weren't savvy enough to know that someone might do something like this
6. The men should be publicized because they were pervy / pathetic / wrong
7. Jason was right because it's funny
powered by performancing firefox