>uh yeah, these grifting creeps posing as journalists are exactly what people expect when they win lottery tickets and claim them non-anonymously.
Is there a reason you consider them not journalists?
Is there a reason you consider them not journalists?
kthxbye
But regardless, if you come up with any kind of system to generate millions of dollars, whether it's a business or a way to game the lottery, you should absolutely expect to be subject to public scrutiny and it's ludicrous to frame a Facebook DM as an unacceptable invasion of privacy (making this argument while working in the surveillance-tech sector elevates the absurdity to self-parody)
You are conflating this with that other conversation you keep trying to force happen.
This conversation has nothing to do with mirroring tech leadership or personally identifying with employers. I am not an employee anywhere and you failed to predict what I do as well. Moving on before your next ad hominem finishes rendering, they could consider using states and game combinations where anonymity of winners is protected and maybe they already are. There is an argument to be had about anonymous winners.
It is of course even more ludicrous to expect anonymity when you have solved the lottery in states that do not permit anonymous winners.
> It is unacceptable to try to track someone down about money through their parents.
As a blanket statement, that's nonsense. Stalking someone's parents to collect an unpaid medical would certainly be unacceptable. A polite DM or e-mail requesting an interview with someone who has apparently come up with a foolproof method to generate millions of dollars is entirely reasonable.
does it matter if they could distinguish if the person reaching out is saying they're going to put all their personal information online in an even more digestible format so that more people will harass their parents on Facebook Messenger?
grifting creeps.
If it's via email you could see the domain in the email address. Back before email, journalists might contact people via phone, and I'm not sure if it's so easy to tell then. I assume the email/phone call/facebook message starts off with an introduction saying something like "I'm a journalist with such and such a newspaper..."
> does it matter if they could distinguish if the person reaching out is saying they're going to put all their personal information online in an even more digestible format so that more people will harass their parents on Facebook Messenger?
Do you think the personal information is irrelevant to the story? Do you think this is a story that shouldn't be covered? I think it's an interesting story, and giving some info about the characters in the story helps make it more interesting. It's generally considered proper form to contact the subjects of your article, so I would think it would actually be worse if the journalists didn't contact the people in the story. The purpose of putting the info about the characters is certainly not so that people will harass their parents on Facebook Messenger. It's not like they included their email address, phone number, link to a Facebook profile, or physical address. I don't consider stuff on my Linkedin profile to be creepy. My Linkedin profile is my brag page; it would be great if journalists were writing about stuff on my Linkedin profile.
> grifting creeps.
Are they worse than journalists 50 years ago? Would you consider all journalists grifting creeps?