[wpietri]

It has been an expectation at least since Mark Twain, who courted and reveled in public attention: https://www.thedailybeast.com/americas-first-modern-celebrit...

But I don't think there's any slippery slope there. People who aggressively court public attention should expect to receive public attention. People who don't generally shouldn't. (The exception for me being people who willfully harm others.)

[darkerside]

Mark Twain seems like a different breed; a man who could certainly give as good as he got. He didn't court public attention (solely) for the rewards of fame, but because he was whip smart and wanted to engage.

Compare that to Michael Jackson or Britney Spears (or any number of artists up and down the sliding scale of celebrity). Sure, they wanted to engage with the world through their music and their art, but I don't think they defined themselves as people solely through their craft, and I think (opinion) it should have been their right to determine on what channels they publicly engaged with the world. Not legally, but as a matter of common decency.

Or does everyone who e.g. publishes open source software deserve to be doxxed?

[wpietri]

I think there's a big difference between releasing some open-source software and setting out to profit from being a public figure.

Michael Jackson and Britney Spears put themselves front and center. But J.D. Salinger, for example, didn't. I think the former don't really get to complain that people are interested in the product they are selling. Scientists are another good example here. Carl Sagan clearly sought celebrity (and used it very well). Plenty of Nobel Prize winners didn't.

I also agree "wanting to engage" is an important part of it. Steve Bannon clearly likes being in the public eye, while Stephen Miller doesn't. But both of them are seeking to shape the lives of millions, and so to my mind are legitimate focuses of public attention.

[darkerside]

I think that line is blurrier than we engineers might often want to admit. What's the difference in the end? Money? A legal contract with stipulations?

I think the core of my question is this. You agree we have a right to choose whether we want to engage with the public. Do we have a fine-grained right to engage in one area of life, but not others?

Historically, I think this has been the case (e.g. keeping family out of politics), but I think the line is blurring over time, and I'm not sure that's a good thing.

[wpietri]

I think it depends a lot on the manner of engagement and the area of life. Most pop stars don't just sell music. They sell themselves as personalities, as icons. This is often true about politicians as well. Much less so for authors and software developers, though; there, what they're offering is generally the work, not themselves.

I think keeping family out of politics is not so much about keeping one area of the public figure's life private as allowing the family members to keep their own lives private. Maybe that line is blurring, but I'm not sure the public is entirely to blame. Politicians often use families as props and even shields, as when the wife literally stands by a philandering politician in the apology press conference. And the Trump administration has actively involved the whole family in governing. So I'm not sure I'd lay changes here at the feet of social media.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> People who aggressively court public attention should expect to receive public attention

I would only add that in some cases (some of them notable today) people have nothing to contribute besides a desire for public attention. Public attention is not a right or a tap that can be turned on at will, and I don't care to give it to dull, uninteresting and shallow people.