If they hadn't thought that there was something shameful in what they were doing, they would not have reacted that way, and nobody would know who they are.
(Reference: everyone else, to a first approximation, ever highlighted by a kisscam.)
Ethical polygamists wouldn't have reacted that way. Friends with nothing to hide wouldn't have reacted that way.
If you have something to hide, being out in public and acting ashamed about it is terrible tradecraft.
I am not making a "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" dismissal; this is a "don't be stupid in public" dismissal.
This isn’t just a private matter this was a work affair between the CEO and HR and that affects the work lives of everyone at the company. Not only is there an official corporate structure but there is now an unofficial power dynamic that complicates and tarnishes the working environment, especially when some employees know and others do not. Employees are powerless to do anything about this rather common set of circumstances and have jumped on their chance to add to the disapproval. I think that’s the factor that has given this story legs. I think two non-execs people working at different companies would not have become nearly as viral.
> Still, the viral potential of these kinds of stories is a warning sign that our culture is obsessed with shame, surveillance, and control. An obsession with other people’s private lives is a sickness.
I think (generally speaking) on the internet this is highly exacerbated by the dehumanization of others. For whatever reason, when we aren't face to face, we tend to not connect to the humanness of the people on the other end. This is easily observed when people get into cars and "observe" but don't connect with humans in the other cars who sometimes make suboptimal driving decisions that infringe on sensibilities ("that asshole cut me off! I'll drive recklessly around him to show him how angry I am"). Getting on the internet seems to make this even worse.
I'm reminded of this TED talk in these scenarios, by a journalist and author who interviewed many people who have been publicly shamed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI
> I wish I didn’t know who Andy Byron and Kristin Cabot are. As you no doubt know by now…
You have a choice to not write the article, and thereby not spread it.
In a Slack someone posted the statement from Astronomer, and I had no idea what the statement was referring to. Now I can’t get away from hearing about the story.
What's the current read on this. If he'd been on camera fondling his own wife's breasts at the concert, would that be OK? Or should they "get a room"? Would he still need to resign? Or just issue a public apology?
This isn't a possible situation, and people would do well to internalize that. If someone said "being in public with no intention to be seen", it would be clear that it's unreasonable -- asking everyone to pretend you're invisible -- but change it to "seen and remembered with high fidelity" and people want to roll back to before constantly-filming cameras were common.
If you're in public, people may see you. If people can see you, they may preserve a memory of seeing you, internally or externally to their head.
Readit News
(Reference: everyone else, to a first approximation, ever highlighted by a kisscam.)
Ethical polygamists wouldn't have reacted that way. Friends with nothing to hide wouldn't have reacted that way.
If you have something to hide, being out in public and acting ashamed about it is terrible tradecraft.
I am not making a "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" dismissal; this is a "don't be stupid in public" dismissal.
I think (generally speaking) on the internet this is highly exacerbated by the dehumanization of others. For whatever reason, when we aren't face to face, we tend to not connect to the humanness of the people on the other end. This is easily observed when people get into cars and "observe" but don't connect with humans in the other cars who sometimes make suboptimal driving decisions that infringe on sensibilities ("that asshole cut me off! I'll drive recklessly around him to show him how angry I am"). Getting on the internet seems to make this even worse.
You have a choice to not write the article, and thereby not spread it.
In a Slack someone posted the statement from Astronomer, and I had no idea what the statement was referring to. Now I can’t get away from hearing about the story.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
The real pro tip is not to be seen fondling her breasts on camera.
This isn't a possible situation, and people would do well to internalize that. If someone said "being in public with no intention to be seen", it would be clear that it's unreasonable -- asking everyone to pretend you're invisible -- but change it to "seen and remembered with high fidelity" and people want to roll back to before constantly-filming cameras were common.
If you're in public, people may see you. If people can see you, they may preserve a memory of seeing you, internally or externally to their head.