The central complaint isn't "distaste" because you can't call for someone to be banned because of a "distaste".

"Jesse Singal has distributed private medical information on Bluesky without the consent of the patient" translates to publishing a quote from a patient included in a therapist's letter of support for hormones.

The problem in this situation is that the complaint itself as well as the whole drama surrounding the person is an exercise of harassment towards Singal. In this context, I don't think that saying "waffles" is out of order. I'm not sure of what else can be done about crybullying, since by its very nature innocent bystanders would be surely affected if action was taken against those complaining.

Distributing private medical information without consent is a violation of Bluesky's terms.

And to me, that sounds like a much more concrete example of someone being a bully.

>“Don’t use Bluesky Social to break the law or cause harm to others,”

Is this, quoted in the change.org, the relevant line?

The law was not broken, it is also fairly evident that the intention was not to "cause harm to others", nor has any harm has seemingly come upon the patient for this (it requires a huge stretch of imagination to think of a case in which it could)

Is it private if it is in a public affidavit?

In my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably still be considered private, even if it was made publicly accessible. But even if not, Singal says the same leaker directly contacted him with a new leak, which he also published.

> In my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably be considered private.

How is that relevant to BSky's terms of service? The information was public and did not identify the person.

> But even if not, Singal says the same leaker directly contacted him with a new leak, which he also published.

I notice that you didn't say whether this new leak was private information, or whether it was also already public knowledge, or whether it in any way identified a person.

> I notice that you didn't say whether this new leak was private information

The new leak was, according to journalist Jesse Singal himself, absolutely private information.

Please cite Singal's statement and let's see what he actually said.

I think this entire thread has run its course; if it's not this detail, it'll be another, as a few others have already moved goalposts further down the discussion than the ones you're setting here.

But if you wish to sate personal curiosity, it is in his Substack, linked from the first link I posted, which was itself from the link posted by its GP.

The only thing that seems remotely related to your claims is this:

    When the office of Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey began an investigation, [Reed] said she handed over the spreadsheet, after scrubbing out the personally identifying information that could spark HIPAA problems. She shared a copy of it with me as well — it contains 17 alleged detransitioners or desisters and 60 allegedly worrisome cases.

What's your problem with what happened exactly? Is it your position that your "private information" cannot be used, ever, to expose what some see as a medical scandal, even though it cannot identify you or in any way be associated with you? What does "private" even mean to you if sharing this dataset did not violate HIPAA?

> In my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably still be considered private.

I'd love to see the limitations of this opinion you definitely hold honestly and without favor.

You started by posting a change.org petition that links to a deleted post - in other words an "appeal to petition" that has no evidence. Now you are suggesting there is another leak that was published (presumably not mentioned in this petition?) that also has no evidence. Where is the evidence?

Everything from an actual search engine request for these posts (which to be clear, are deleted) suggests that these are anonymized and public, and contain no identifying information.

Yeah here's the problem with this argument:

1. People want him banned for any and no reason, so this is a post-hoc justification. The same people (let's be real, likely including you) wanted Singal banned the second he made his account.

2. This change.org petition, despite proving how many uninformed people will blindly click agree on a petition, proves nothing about how Singal broke literally any rule anywhere, in law or on Bluesky.

Why do people keep lying about this?

He pulled a quote from a publically available affidavit.

There was no identifying information whatsoever either.