Stars who tweet have no right to privacy

[spike220]

Does he have a point?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2510908/Daniel-Radcliffe-says-stars-tweet-right-privacy.html#ixzz2lHKjmk8W

[JustSimplyHibs]

Yes

[Hibercelona]

Comes across as a sensible man and agree with him entirely.

If you're going to post your entire life story or career over the internet, then don't expect much in the way of privacy.

[jacomo]

He has a point, of sorts, but of course the headline doesn't reflect exactly what he is saying.

Celebrities / sports fans can use social media in all sorts of ways. A footballer who uses Twitter to get closer to fans of the club he is playing for has not lost all right to a private life.

However, people who relentlessly self-promote themselves shouldn't be surprised if this attracts unwanted as well as wanted attention.

[Elephant Stone]

So once you use twitter you've surrendered absolutely all of your rights relating to privacy? Once you've tweeted you're going to Nando's you lose the right to keep private that you've got cancer or you're a drug addict?

[Killiehibbie]

So once you use twitter you've surrendered absolutely all of your rights relating to privacy? Once you've tweeted you're going to Nando's you lose the right to keep private that you've got cancer or you're a drug addict?If you're famous and tell the world you're heading to Nando's don't be surprised if you don't get peace to eat your dinner. Tell the world how good it was after you've been unless you want the attention.

[Hibercelona]

So once you use twitter you've surrendered absolutely all of your rights relating to privacy? Once you've tweeted you're going to Nando's you lose the right to keep private that you've got cancer or you're a drug addict?

How about you try clicking on the link and try reading what he actually said?

[Elephant Stone]

How about you try clicking on the link and try reading what he actually said?

If you go on Twitter and tell everybody what you’re doing moment to moment and then claim you want a private life, then no one is going to take that request seriously.

Do you understand what these words mean?

[Hibercelona]

If you go on Twitter and tell everybody what you’re doing moment to moment and then claim you want a private life, then no one is going to take that request seriously.

Do you understand what these words mean?


Yes, you seem to be the only person who doesn't.

If you tell people you're going to nandos, don't expect privacy when you go to nandos.

If you tell people you have cancer, don't expect privacy surrounding the fact that you have cancer.

[Elephant Stone]

Yes, you seem to be the only person who doesn't.

If you tell people you're going to nandos, don't expect privacy when you go to nandos.

If you tell people you have cancer, don't expect privacy surrounding the fact that you have cancer.

That's common sense, no one would disagree with that, it's not worthy of a news article and it's not what the article is saying.

[Hibercelona]

That's common sense, no one would disagree with that, it's not worthy of a news article and it's not what the article is saying.

It's exactly what the article is saying. You just pointed it out yourself. :confused:

[Elephant Stone]

It's exactly what the article is saying. You just pointed it out yourself. :confused:

It's titled "stars who tweet have no right to privacy". This is the contention of the article. It's not saying that there's no right to privacy in respect of what you voluntarily reveal, it's saying that once you're in the habit of voluntarily revealing information you lose the right to complain when any of your privacy is invaded.

[Northernhibee]

Let us not forget the Mail bullied a teenager out of her first job because of posts on her Twitter made when she was around 15/16.

The Daily Mail can **** off.

[Elephant Stone]

Let us not forget the Mail bullied a teenager out of her first job because of posts on her Twitter made when she was around 15/16.

The Daily Mail can **** off.

That's exactly what the article is justifying. The idea that when you enter the public sphere you're fair game for any intrusion by the press.

[Centre Hawf]

This is an article for the Daily Mail to justify raiding peoples social media accounts (not just celebrities) for a story. This discussion has been brought up numerous times in the past regarding Facebook, Bebo, MySpace etc, I remember a couple of years ago The Express for example got into trouble for snooping around Dunblane survivors Bebo accounts and reporting on them. So read the article with that in mind.

Although i will admit celebs can't expect to not be hassled when they tweet "training/filming done off to Nandos now"

[TrinityHibs]

Let us not forget the Mail bullied a teenager out of her first job because of posts on her Twitter made when she was around 15/16.

The Daily Mail can **** off.

Was that 17 year old Paris Brown, who had recently been appointed Youth Police Commissioner but had also tweeted violent, racist and homophobic comments when she was 16? I've not read the link as I wouldn't want them to benefit in any way by going to their website nor am I supporting the Daily Mail but I had little sympathy for her

[Hibercelona]

If you're famous and you post something that the entire world (not just the media) has access to, then you're not going to have any privacy surrounding what you've posted.

So if you have somebody famous tweeting every minute/moment of their life, they have no grounds to complain about their lack of privacy, because they're making their entire life accessible to the whole world.

[Monts]

http://youtu.be/5P_0s1TYpJU

This is an interesting related video. It's not celebrities, but it does show that you might not have as much privacy as you thought you did

[allezsauzee]

He's making a lot more sense now than he did when he was Scotland manager

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Social media is a blessing and a curse. Something younger generations will learn the hard way.

Some elements of the public have been seduced/duped into sharing aspects of their personal lives (a marketers dream! Egged on by celebs).

If used effectively it can be a useful tool. The flip side is banal dribblings/ frankenstein psychology made on the hoof and rehashing someone else's "wisdom" as you own ("Buddhas thought of the day...").

I'm with Elton I HATE the cult of celebrity (I said Cult!) is the term culture taking it too far tho?

To the OP I think the point is be careful with your privacy don't erode it by following celebs that use social media to talk about their private life. I don't believe the right to privacy is waived purely if you use a tool to get your message/thoughts out there. Going on to Tweet about private life is another matter.

Social media has blurred the boundaries and confused some donuts along the way ;)

[Posh Swanny]

So once you use twitter you've surrendered absolutely all of your rights relating to privacy? Once you've tweeted you're going to Nando's you lose the right to keep private that you've got cancer or you're a drug addict?


If you go on Twitter and tell everybody what you’re doing moment to moment and then claim you want a private life, then no one is going to take that request seriously.

Do you understand what these words mean?



That's common sense, no one would disagree with that, it's not worthy of a news article and it's not what the article is saying.


It's titled "stars who tweet have no right to privacy". This is the contention of the article. It's not saying that there's no right to privacy in respect of what you voluntarily reveal, it's saying that once you're in the habit of voluntarily revealing information you lose the right to complain when any of your privacy is invaded.


That's exactly what the article is justifying. The idea that when you enter the public sphere you're fair game for any intrusion by the press.

I think you've seen the word "right" in the headline and clung onto it a little too tightly when reading the article - as was the DM's intention, no doubt.

To me, Radcliffe appears to be pointing out the simple facts of the situation - "people will not take it seriously" - and he's evidently spot on. Whether he thinks such a thing is right or wrong is not said, he merely asserts that if you don't use social media you don't open yourself up to the problem.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Suppose you could use Twitter to put out misleading or incorrect information that can't be true? You could say that you are going to Nandos but go to Pizza Hut instead? Or Elton John can say that he has gone to the barber's when he is actually at Carpet World.

[hibbydog]

Twitter really is either a popularity competition or it's attention seeking.

For those short in brainpower, (incl many footballers who cannot engage the brain before tweeting) their twitter quickly turns into a bombsite.

I'd like someone to uninvent twitter

[Speedy]

That's exactly what the article is justifying. The idea that when you enter the public sphere you're fair game for any intrusion by the press.

The article is a load of pish. It lies in the headline.

[Jonnyboy]

Daily Mail - bastion of fair and level journalism - must be right :fibber:

[heretoday]

We went to Nando's recently and the food was dreadful. Also the seats were all torn and tatty.

That has very little to do with the thread but it needs to be said.

[Dashing Bob S]

Elton John hates celebrity culture in the way that Russell Brand detests vaginas.

[weonlywon6-2]

That's exactly what the article is justifying. The idea that when you enter the public sphere you're fair game for any intrusion by the press.


Judging by all the phone hacking that has gone on they are going to get you anyway

[RIP Bestie]

"Celebrities " know the score. They demand top dollar for being in the public eye. That is great. They should expect praise or criticism to be in the public domain. But when they can't handle it and start having "Tweet" wars, they really should have award with themselves. I don't think they should be giving opinions on this type of medusa. McPake has done it recently and in my opinion has shown a complete lack of class and professionalism.

[Pete]

"Celebrities " know the score. They demand top dollar for being in the public eye. That is great. They should expect praise or criticism to be in the public domain. But when they can't handle it and start having "Tweet" wars, they really should have award with themselves. I don't think they should be giving opinions on this type of medusa. McPake has done it recently and in my opinion has shown a complete lack of class and professionalism.

Are you serious?

If your digs at McPake are deleted on one thread do you just move onto another?

I bet that if you had put up with the crap that he has had to recently you wouldn't find it easy to remain composed.

It's sad that so many have little sympathy for James and his situation. Short memories too.