September 10, 2006How Stupid Can You Be?pretty stupid it seems. apparently some guy named jason fortuny decided to do a little experiment. hey, i'm all for experiments! but instead of compiling the results and providing the simple answer, he went a little too far... On Monday, a Seattle web developer named Jason Fortuny started his own Craigslist experiment. The goal: "Posing as a submissive woman looking for an aggressive dom, how many responses can we get in 24 hours?" i'll leave the details and some of the fallout to the article linked above, but i definitely want to go on record and say "what an asshole!" what value did he think he was bringing to the world for doing that? it is one thing to say n number of people responded. even doing a less than accurate breakdown based on other factors like how many actually included pictures, claimed to be married, and a variety of other differentiators. but to publish not just their responses, but their email addresses and not filtering out clearly private/personal information like phone numbers! like many of the original comments suggest, i too, hope the guy gets his ass sued off. before reading the comments, which were thankfully cut off early else i'd probably still be reading them, i knew... just knew... one person would chime in saying those that responded "got what they deserved" and that they'd point to some married guy, label him a cheater which in the minds of many means there is nothing you can't do to the person that isn't justifiable. and it didn't take long for that comment to appear. what floors me is that the commenter assumes that the married guy is actually cheating. perhaps his wife isn't into that kink -- and if you read what the ad was looking for, it wasn't missionary -- and that she told him to go get this jollies elsewhere. or that he isn't in an open relationship.
regardless, that isn't even the point. jason posted the information (including phone numbers and pictures sent) of everyone. this includes single men (and women) that have every right (moral or otherwise) as a concenting adult to respond to the ad and pursue... ummmm... the adventure. the fact of the matter and the question it raises is where did jason think he got the right to publish this information? he'd already committed a fraud by claiming to be a woman -- well, unless he secretly is, i don't know the for those that sit and justify his little experiment, i like the question asked by one of the commenters. would it have been ok to post all the same information for respondents of an ad to sell a bicycle? it would be ok to put their names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses out there? of course not! what i think jason was relying on was the fact that responding to an ad like his has a certain social stigma attached. that those being exposed would be viewed as bad people and the "moral majority" would side with him for exposing those cheaters and perverts. bzzzt. i don't think so jason. whether i agree with who responded or what they were responding to, the fact of the matter is they corresponded with whom you (jason) led them to believe they were writing to and it was done so with the expectation that it was not going to be published. this wasn't a case of not protecting the information, it is a case of abusing it. he purposefully published it for reasons i can only guess at and i hope he has to pay the proverbial piper for his mistake. hope he enjoys his 15 minutes of fame.
Posted by ac at September 10, 2006 01:51 PM
|