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)

▲

zdragnar 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is it private if it is in a public affidavit?

▲

mossTechnician 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

naasking an hour ago | parent [-]

> 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.

	▲	mossTechnician an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> 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.