> 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 2 hours 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.

▲

naasking an hour ago | parent [-]

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

	▲	mossTechnician 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.