Foone is more than competent enough to publish to the web with whatever access control they find agreeable. jwz is, as well, and doesn't like being linked from
HN either, for example.
Posting on Twitter publicly is consent to be linked to, regardless of what other words are said.
That doesn't mean you're not being a jerk by going against someone's preferences.
If you invite people to a party, are you the jerk for telling the person you know to be vegan that by going to the party they consent to having to eat meat? Clearly, the vegan person could simply not go to the party and not consent to it, but it still kinda makes you a jerk for even making this a problem, you could have either made a vegan meal or not invite them (and inform them why if they're a close friend maybe).
> Clearly, the vegan person could simply not go to the party and not consent to it, but it still kinda makes you a jerk for even making this a problem, you could have either made a vegan meal or not invite them
I think not inviting someone to a meat party because they're vegan is way more of a jerk move than saying "hey, I'm having a meat party, I know you're vegan but you can still come if you want" and them not coming. Give people the option to make their own choices.
Foone chose to publish things unauthenticated to the web on Twitter. That's affirmative consent to anyone on the web reading the URL by visiting it.
>That's affirmative consent to anyone on the web reading the URL by visiting it.
No it's not. It means it's out there but the wishes of a person may still go contrary. That is perfectly fine and like in the above example, maybe you should give people options instead of taking them away.
Foone is more than competent enough to publish to the web with whatever access control they find agreeable. jwz is, as well, and doesn't like being linked from HN either, for example.
Posting on Twitter publicly is consent to be linked to, regardless of what other words are said.