No. Personal information should not be published unless there's some very compelling public interest reason or if the information is clearly already public.
If a record is public in the sense of a search on a state's corporation lists that show the name and address of the owner. Is that considered personal information that is banned on Metabunk @Mick West ? Since it's already a public record? In the news biz, which I am more familiar with, once a person makes a claim, such as Jake Barber, or becomes a public figure for various reasons, all previous entitlements to privacy are no longer valid. I'd like a little more clarification.
I'm not a policy-maker, but here's my two cents. If someone becomes a public figure, I'd like to know about the actions that caused him to be a public figure. That's an entirely different thing from knowing his address, his phone number, or his relatives that are not involved in those public actions. Some things matter, but some are merely irrelevant prurient interests.
Some of the parents of the Sandy Hook and Uvalde murders are public figures. ergo im not sure i agree with the lack of morality of "new biz" conclusions.
I'm sure Mick will address this soon.
Publically available business records that do not contain home addresses or other PII (Personal Identifying Information) are usually acceptable.
I'm not talking about addresses. I'm talking about state corporation records of an individual making public claims. If that person forms a corporation with another person, that person's information is then the question, since it is not their public interest. As in there is a company name and another individual's name. Some feel posting the name and information about the secondary corporation or partner should not be public knowledge since the other party is not involved in the first parties claim or public statements. If you see this is an irrelevant lead or irrelevant interest, let me know.
you guys already posted Charlie's Helicopters. with the owners name. but it was a business address.
IF there is some far out reason his financial information needs exposing (or we need to investigate family members <we dont) then just DM Mick with the information and say "can i include this information in the thread?"
Corporations that form using bank loans are listed under the person's name on California state records. So using that database you can see the name of corporations and who applied for the loan. And the names of the co-signers. I also didn't know the standard policy is "DM Mick" when I have a question and it's inappropriate and annoying to some for me to ask in a forum. The issue I have is why can I go to a public government website and type in a name and it shows me the info, but I can't paste that info on another website? It's sort of hypocritical. If it's protected information it shouldn't be on a government public website in the first place accessible with no account or agreement . I know that''s beyond the scope of this topic, but I find the smug and accusatory tone of some of the replies here really condescending, unfriendly and unhelpful.
I guess that depends on the rules of the website -- they all have their own rules. One of the things I like about this place is that the rules seem to work well (not perfectly, but well) in keeping the conversation from getting ugly and devolving into "No, YOU'RE an idiot!!!" type stuff that other sites I've posted to have a habit of doing.
Agreed, @Mick West does this discussion need to be broken out and put elsewhere?
Yeah, sometimes. I'd say that, in my experience, it is not nearly as bad here as most other sites, especially those with looser rules. FWIW, I try (imperfectly) to avoid inferring tone too much as it is sometimes not conveyed well in online posts. I hope that mentioning that does not come across too condescending! ^_^ It was not so intended.
Firstly, that is not an example of hypocrisy.
What is your rational that it is perfectly acceptable, that I can search a gov public website for a public figure and it shows information on bank loans, and names of individuals who are partners, yet posting that information here is somehow "prurient interest" as I was accused of in a previous reply. That posting that same text here is not allowed. I would say that tangles with the term hypocrisy. But I don't know Mick's stance on California state records legislation to say. Maybe he is a staunch critic of those open records laws. So then it's really not hypocritical.
It's fine if you have proof that his associates are involved in something like that.
it wouldnt be insulting at all if you took the time to read carefully. esp if you are referring to my hunter biden example.
Mick gave you clear and concise guidance in post #9. its his website.
he didn't say it was you who used that word. search the page, it's not a paraphrase.
he's arguing the usage of the term hypocrisy. and he's just throwing in everything but the kitchen sink to "trap" you into agreeing with him. I imagine in professional debate, there is a specific term for that.
He at *no point* addressed the word "hypocrisy" in that post. I think you are confusing "professional" with "sub-par amateurish".
its in the first paragraph. its the whole subject of the first paragraph.
i wasnt saying he is engaging in professional debate. im saying in actual professional debates there is likely a term for his sneaky strategy.
maybe we are just following the CONTEXT of conversation.
You were not told that your interest was prurient. The full post where the term was used is:
As already mentioned, we discourage paraphrasing, specifically because it leads to misunderstanding.
