This illustrates the irony: a company, whose product collects information from the internet, requests that an article "removed" from the internet.
(And honestly this is probably a mistake as it actually draws more attention to the original article).
(And honestly this is probably a mistake as it actually draws more attention to the original article).
If you have a statement on your website that promises to never put cats on the moon but then you do, I imagine some shareholders/investors might feel misled. I don't know _if_ that opens someone up to legal action but I could see the argument.
(i am not throwing stones, i've fallen foul of this as a blogger before, excusing myself from commonsense precaution in my eagerness to discuss industry relevant insights. private https://www.swyx.io/private)
Where did you get this idea? You don't "go on record" with a journalist. Everything you do and say around them is on the record by default. There are ethical codes and frameworks on what, when, and how to report but "private conversations are private" is certainly not considered normal.
Re your mea culpa, it's a completely different situation and I don't see how journalistic ethics would be applicable there. If you want to have a more appropriate term, maybe "blogger ethics"?
Agreed. This includes not making statements like your previous one about "journalistic ethics". Consider this: If your now removed post had been containing the same information but based on a separate conversation with their ex-partner, with their consent to publish, would that had made it less problematic? Without having read the post, I imagine it wouldn't. So it turns out that there's more to it.
I'm not saying these posts aren't problematic, nor that journalists lack ethics. I am saying that "private conversations are private" is oversimplifying the matter and not part of journalistic ethics in the general. You're making references to professional code you lack qualifications for.
Consider medicine. Let's say Alex is visiting a sick family member. Alex has no medical training. They bring some drugs which later turn out to cause even worse health issues. "Medical ethics" isn't a useful framing for discussing that situation IMO, for similar reasons.
Attention Is All You Need
This content was going to be wildly shared and discussed whether deleted or not, by deleting it they have at least a) made an official (yet soft, as it doesn't address any specific points) statement that it's not information they're trying to put out and b) probably reduced SEO / future views beyond these current discussions.
I can't see any argument for it getting more attention because of deletion than it would have got anyway?
I've deleted things I posted, including here on HN. You probably did too. And I've scraped data from the internet countless times. You probably did too. I don't think I'm an irony because of that. You probably aren't either.