Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeremysmyth | Hacker News Reader

This leads to an obvious problem with the definition of "public interest": A very large proportion of the public is interested in what goes on in the bedrooms of celebrities. I'm not sure I could support that definition of "public interest" in this equation.

View on HN

"Public interest" in this context is not the same thing as "the interest of the public". The former is a fairly objective (though difficult to measure) thing which concerns itself with the welfare of the populace [1]. This is historically what was meant by "public interest," though the newer meaning of "whatever interests the public" has muddied the meaning of the phrase somewhat.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/public+interest

There's two different meanings of interest at play here. Certainly much of the public is interested in gossip, and enjoys being titillated by it. But it does not have an interest in that information in the sense that it will be worse off for not knowing.

Agreed. Public interest is a very difficult to define - Snowden vs Celebrate gossip etc. I was being looking for a distraction and was doing a bit of a thought experiment :)

if (anthonyWeiner.status == published) { publish(JenniferLawrenceStory); }

Many have expressed doubt that the media reaction would be the same if Kristen Stewart's photos were leaked instead.

It's not about what the public want but what they need.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com