|
|
|
|
|
by wpietri
2894 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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.