|
|
|
|
|
by donutte
2920 days ago
|
|
That seems stronger than what I’m saying. The folks who can’t let it go, who are still trying to circumvent the family’s privacy, they obviously are motivated by something besides concern for the victim and his kin. I don’t have any sympathy for them. But I think the point I’m trying to make is that there’s a lot of distance between “right to intrude” and “none of your business”. The fact is that the identity of this person was their business, for a decade, simply because it wasn’t the business of anyone else. Of course there’s no right to know the name of a stranger. But I am glad they made it their business — I’m glad someone cared — and I’m sorry the outcome hurt them. It’s not any more complicated than that. |
|
I get that a lot of people invested a lot of time into this, but there's a suggestion in TFA that implies that this effort merits some special privileges, whether that inlcudes knowing the identity of the suicide or some other kind of recognition. It doesn't.
It was a voluntary act, perhaps a kind act, perhaps not from the perspective of the family. The implication is that the family either wanted to know or ought to have wanted to know. We have no information to evaluate those judgments, and there's enough gray there that it's irritating as an assumption.
The reality is that it is morally no different than participating in a subreddit on cats or submitting articles and commenting on them on HN. We're all voluntarily spending time on the internet rather than doing something else.