Unidentified Plane-Bae Woman’s Statement Confirms the Worst

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/07/unidentified-plane-bae-womans-statement-confirms-the-worst/565139/?single_page=true

by rsgoheen • 8 years ago

159 115 8 years ago

theatlantic.com

ebbv• 8 years ago

Isn’t kinda the point of her statement that she isn’t unidentified? She was made famous by somebody else without her knowledge and consent.

When a production crew wants to use footage of you in a show they have to get you to sign a release. There probably needs to be some form of this for online exposure as well. What form that would take is a difficult question.

paidleaf• 8 years ago

She was made famous by somebody else without her knowledge and consent.

She was made famous by the attention-seeking couple, her "plane boyfriend" and the exploitive media.

It's amazing how such a nonstory was milked by everyone for publicity and profit. And the theatlantic is still going at it.

If the poor woman wants privacy, how about theatlantic stop writig about the "Plane-Bae Woman"? How about focus on the couple who "set her up" to gain media following? How about focus on the "plane boyfriend" who knew about the couple filming them and used that for publicity by appearing all over TV and hinting that the unsuspecting woman had sex with him in the plane bathroom ( probably because the producer told him they needed juicy story from him ).

Or most importantly, how about the atlantic shine a light on itself and the media which turn a non-story into a major story because they need to exploit everything and everyone for money?

The story should be on everyone but the woman and yet the title is "Plane-Bae Woman".

And the atlantic is lying when they say "unidentified" woman when the "boyfriend" identified her and the media spent an entire week exploiting this woman and this story.

Instead of "Unidentified Plane-Bae Woman...", how about "Everything Wrong with the Media and Attention Seeking People"? Put the focus on the problem, not the victim.

ghaff10• 8 years ago

And while they're at it, I hope there have been consequences, if only some serious soul searching, for the Alaska Air and T-Mobile PR people who apparently jumped on this.

cuckcuckspruce• 8 years ago

If they did that then they'd have to admit to themselves and the world that they're only making the situation worse, not better, by focusing on these types of stories.

s-shellfish• 8 years ago

If the poor woman wants privacy, how about theatlantic stop writig about the "Plane-Bae Woman"?

That honestly oversimplifies the issue. There's a narrative out there, that is clearly affecting how random people are interacting with her, not to mention her perception of herself.

Sometimes you have to control the narrative with the other perspective after the problem happens to mitigate the damage.

Stuff like this is never simple, it affects real people. Real people have to be talked about after real people are talked about unfairly. Not everything can be generalized, abstracted, and distilled into a philosophy.

jandrese• 8 years ago

I have to admit that this is the first I've seen of this "scandal", but it appears to be "people chat on airplane". Is it a slow news week for the gossip rags?

Gargoyle2• 8 years ago

There's no reason existing media release forms wouldn't work in this instance.

sorenjan2• 8 years ago

I hate how everything has to be public nowadays. If you do something silly or embarrassing you need to take into account that everybody have cameras with them at all times, and enough people have no qualms about posting others private moments online for the world to see. I'm a private person, I don't want videos or pictures of me available for everyone. To be constantly surrounded by internet connected cameras definitely makes me less likely to risk look like an ass, even among friends.

sorokod4• 8 years ago

No need to do silly or embarrassing things - an "amusing" voice over commentary will be enough to bury you.

ap3• 8 years ago

Just being nice by switching seats sets you up for ridicule and shame

ghaff10• 8 years ago

It gets rather bothersome. My professional life at least is pretty public and it's sort of my job. But I'm pretty happy that there weren't ubiquitous cameras and videos around when I was younger.

In practice, most of us are somewhat protected by sheer numbers and the fact that people move on and a lot of information does effectively rot over time.

Balanced against that though is the increasingly number of cameras and automated recognition and categorization systems. And the whole mob mentality. Obviously in the cases where it has actually led to deaths. But also in the, perhaps rare, but well-documented cases where a stupid off-hand remark or action triggers the social media machine and the path of least resistance is career-ending firings and the like.

sorenjan2• 8 years ago

I somewhat agree to your point that the sheer volume of new stuff makes most things disappear rather fast from the public eye. But what used to be a moment among friends, let's say spontaneous skinny dipping or a badly chosen joke, gets shared with everyone in your extended circles and is easily saved and brought up whenever in the future.

Then there's the mob mentality issue you mention, and perhaps more relevant to this article. Even after it passes the names and images are still around when people search your name. It's on your permanent record.

sp332• 8 years ago

Telling a few friends used to be the default, and telling everybody took more effort. Now the default is for people to share their comments with ~2 billion people. It's actually more work to tell only your friends.

mc322• 8 years ago

If this only went on on Twitter or whatever, this would have come to pass. The reason it's "blown up" is due to media attention, ironically from the likes of The Atlantic and all the other media channels who decided it was funny and wanted to carry the story because everyone else was.

The Atlantic should be outraged at itself along with all the media family.

Right here The Atlantic is masterfully playing the issue from both sides. It could have addressed the issue genetically, of course.

wpietri5• 8 years ago

Twitter has over 300m active users. It's plenty big enough for something to become real on its own. From two years ago, here's an article listing the top 10 hashtag movements: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/21...

Most obviously relevant is Black Lives Matter. Police brutality and other biased policing has been happening in America since the beginning. The media have been generally happy to ignore it. (Even when they cover mob killings, it's often been with a neutral or even approving tone. [1]) BLM happened because of social media, because 300m people are now publishers and editors, not just article subjects.

Since then we've seen plenty more. If you're not on Twitter, you may not hear about these things until you see media coverage. But that doesn't mean they're not significant events, both societally or for the people involved.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00D614D80/

rdiddly2• 8 years ago

What gets me about this is how you can be as scrupulous and disciplined as you please about staying off social media, wiping up your digital footprints, etc., but then as soon as you go out in public, someone can just blithely make the decision for you, to put you on social media.

To say nothing of all the proliferating random stationary surveillance cameras and police bodycams out there. Which if you're "fortunate" enough to live in Orlando FL or Washington County OR, is now connected to a facial recognition ML model.

Where is the backlash, where is the outrage about this? Why do people just stupidly let dumb shit proliferate, and only years later say "Oops we did it again?"

imh2• 8 years ago

Somehow, after all of this, fans of the thread still remained adamant that no wrong had been committed. “We do it everyday to celebrities. No difference. Outrage culture is so dumb,” wrote one Instagram user below a BuzzFeed News post on the story.

It does seem no different from what society seems to be ok with towards celebrities. I have always been uncomfortable with the idea that because someone is on a TV show, society is ok having photographers follow them around 24/7 and reporting on their personal lives.

We have set a poor precedent.

projektir3• 8 years ago

I can sort of understand politicians (even then...), but definitely not celebrities or otherwise there's this concept of "public person" that seems awfully free form. We also don't really combat paparazzi well at all.

untog• 8 years ago

There are a great many celebrities whose lives are still private. They simply don't play the game: don't have social media, don't arrange for paparazzi to "catch" them leaving a nightclub, or invite a magazine through the doors of their house.

So it seems the confusion is two fold. People believing that their access to celebrity lives are anything other than arranged PR opportunities, and then believing everyday people should be subject to that incorrectly interpreted behaviour.

Erwin• 8 years ago

"Orville", a semi-serious version of Star Trek by Seth MacFarlane has one amusing "Black Mirror"-ultra-lite episode about this: "Majority Rule". In this world, law has been replaced by a simple upvote/downvote system and pictures of people doing stupid things can go viral on a "global feed".

shp0ngle• 8 years ago

The lesson of the story: don't say anything publicly to anyone ever, because everyone around has a camera in their pocket and is way too hungry for internet points.

noobermin• 8 years ago

Further isolating ourselves would hurt in other areas. As someone else said, we need a cultural change, one where we need not to have to constantly distrust other people because they respect boundaries. One of the best ways to do this would be to reduce the amount of value stupid internet popularity points seem to matter and push dopamine buttons.

matz1• 8 years ago

It's the opposite, be as public as much as you can. If your life already mostly public, the incident like this likely won't hurt you much.

sixstringtheory• 8 years ago

So can I walk around in my birthday suit now?

ythn• 8 years ago

There's no technological or legal solution to this problem (short of draconian), the solution is a cultural one.

devwastaken• 8 years ago

consent to record someone is a thing. Some states are only one party consent, some require both.

ryandrake• 8 years ago

Strong two party consent everywhere and no exception for "public spaces" would go a long way.

ghaff10• 8 years ago

That's absolutely right. This was clearly obnoxious on the part of at least a couple people as well as the "mob." And it may have violated some clandestine recording statute depending on what jurisdiction it took place in. But I can't feel that the solution is some sort of right to be forgotten on steroids where anyone can get media that don't like for any reason to be taken down across social media and search. (Probably not practical anyway even if people were OK with that--which they wouldn't be.)

blahblahblogger• 8 years ago

Laws can't keep up with technology. But it may be time for a law to come into fruition since everyone is now a paparazzi and you don't have to be a celeb to be a target.

They know the name of the individual who recorded it and transmitted it to Twitter. They can go after her if there is a law and hopefully have a real punishment in place for this kind of behavior.

Furthermore the individual who recorded it also profited off it. She has a career that depends on how much exposure she gets and this is apparently the biggest thing she's done. She was also offered something by Alaska Airlines (their tweet was deleted), tried to get a Buzzfeed job from the attention, sent out some tweet about getting free plane tickets from her followers, and increased her exposure even more via the tons of new followers she gained.

darkerside4• 8 years ago

I participated in solving it the best way I know how, by doing my best to ignore it completely. I highly encourage others to do the same.

bobbygoodlatte• 8 years ago

There may be a technical solution on Twitter's end — adjust their feed algorithm. I feel like their shift towards algorithmically ranking the Twitter feed (versus chronologically) has dramatically increased the reach of viral moments like this.

They're trying to maximize user engagement/addiction and it's working. But what cost is their algorithm imposing on society? We're seeing more outrage in politics, more clickbait in journalism, and more privacy violations like this. Engagement-obsessed algorithms have created massive externalities which we all pay for.

gaius• 8 years ago

I’ve suggested a fix before - once you follow or get more than a certain number of followers, say 15, there should be a fee to tweet, and a much higher one to retweet.

wallflower• 8 years ago

I fear we are all one misstep away from going viral for all the wrong reasons. In a world where people die taking ill-advised selfies and YouTube is glutted with pranking videos that all try to one up each other, it seems that exposure and attention is the new currency. The problem is that they can use and discard you if you are doing something that fits their narrative for attention.

And then you have online mobs. With wildfire falsehoods. For example, people were killed in India because of false rumors spread on WhatsApp:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/02/asia/india-lynching-whats...

pavel_lishin• 8 years ago

“We do it everyday to celebrities. No difference. Outrage culture is so dumb,” wrote one Instagram user below a BuzzFeed News post on the story.

I don't think this commenter understands that celebrities choose to put themselves in the spotlight.

watwut• 8 years ago

Maybe we should think about fact that celebrities are people too more often.

everdev• 8 years ago

Even still, isn't it ok for celebrities not to want to share every detail of their life?

thrill• 8 years ago

The same celebrities that want to dictate every detail of others' lives?

SideburnsOfDoom3• 8 years ago

celebrities choose to put themselves in the spotlight.

It does not follow that e.g. if your day job is singing or acting, that you want people to interrupt you and take photos when you are eating in a restaurant, or discuss your relationships in a tabloid. Many would view it as an unfortunate side-effect of the job, or worse.

masklinn2• 8 years ago

Many would view it as an unfortunate side-effect of the job, or worse.

It is somewhat unfortunate, but it's also well-understood, as you start working to get into these spaces you know it's a significant risk especially if you're aiming for the more popular kind of public act[0].

And that's not a recent phenomenon either, public performers have had significantly lowered expectations of privacy… ever since the concept has existed really.

What I mean to say is: if you're an artist, you're aware that this shit is a risk, and you can act to mitigate it, and it's a pain and tiring but at least it's that. And if you know dealing is not an option, you take a different path or take care to hide your identity early on (à la Banksy) or use some other means of separating a public persona and a more discrete private one.

If you're a rando, the expectation is not that you're going to be made "famous" for mundane actions, it's not a side-effect or your career and benefits, and you're basically hosed.

[0] Dave Chambers / Blindboy Boatclub can probably expect less intrusiveness into their private life and actions than Beyonce or Chris Pratt

kentt• 8 years ago

Agreed. However, many musicians are not and they are very influential in that. I remember when Dave Matthews was in his heyday, he says he could mostly just walk down the street like normal but not if he surrounded himself with an entourage and dressed up like a celebrity.

gdulli• 8 years ago

And that's why I think it's immoral for parents to put their kids into the entertainment industry. Even if the industry wasn't exploitative the kid has no understanding of what they're giving up and whether it's more important than money.

pdkl95• 8 years ago

Fame used to be something you had to ask for, because being famous required access to limited infrastructure. Media access was scarce, and so you had to work to be noticed by the gatekeepers of that infrastructure.

Digital communication an internetworking fundamentally changed that; the cost to publish dropped to approximately zero. Basic media access is de facto no longer scarce. You no longer need to appeal to a gatekeeper when you can e.g. post a tweet for free.

This means it it now possible to accidentally reach a much larger audience than the most of the pre-internet media. Fame is now something that can happen to you. Worse, the traditional idea of fame was something you could walk away form. You simply quit participating; being some type of celebrity was a job that required maintenance. When you become accidentally famous on Twitter/etc it is often your normal life that happened to become famous. Walking away form that means walking away from your normal life.

For a very good explanation of this topic, I recommend this[1] video.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTUW-owa2w

SideburnsOfDoom3• 8 years ago

Excellent video, thanks. Watch all the way through. It gets even better as it goes.

ArtWomb• 8 years ago

So she's retained counsel and preparing to file a suit? Against whom? $TWTR?

The only viable strategy in the current media saturated clime is to embrace the attention. Every human on earth now possesses a mobile news studio in their pocket. There is no such thing as bad publicity for your own personal brand. If caught with your pants down. Put it in your bio. And re-invent yourself as the #planebae matchmaker offering services at a discounted rate for followers!

There is another viral media piece today about the discovery in Mythic Ireland by dronespotters. Circulating around the hashtag #NewHenge. It's the discovery of a lifetime. Has spread around the world in a matter of days. And will probably result in eternal archaeological renown for the finders on a Heinrich Schliemann level of glory. Or at least, they'll never have to buy a pint in County Meath for the rest of their lives.

There is no hiding from the World anymore. Just embrace your own true authentic self.

chrisseaton• 8 years ago

Against whom?

Against the woman who posted the Tweets, I would imagine? Perhaps also against the companies which encouraged it, like T-Mobile?

zaphar2• 8 years ago

I wonder if a lawsuit alleging sander and line would apply here. I actually hope that the couple and the news organizations who started the whole thing get sued.

magnetic2• 8 years ago

It would make sense to me: if someone causes distress on someone else through their actions, I imagine you can make a legal case for going after him/her, especially if the first person does it for a gain (of notoriety, publicity, fame, etc) rather than by accident.

gfodor• 8 years ago

What would the game theoretic outcome be if this kind of thing were facilitated at scale by an AI? Ie, imagine a world where your chance of being globally exposed like this was a non-trivial measure due to ever present AI generating memes based on public human behaviors? I wonder if the end result is a society wide abandonment of "fan in" [1] capable media like Twitter.

[1] https://codahale.com/fan-in/

taneq• 8 years ago

Lower risk, I'd think, than now. There's only room for a few concurrent big memes on the internet, and the risk of becoming one of those is split among all of the people exposed to it. AI generating an increased flood of it would just increase the noise.

jokoon• 8 years ago

What is weird is that there doesn't look like any law was broken, does it?

I was arguing with a female friend who strongly argues that people have the right to their own image, so it should be forbidden to take picture of them. On the other hand, when you go into a public place, you should be photographed because it is a matter of freedom of speech: we should be able to record people committing crimes or felonies.

I guess that it should be illegal to record people without their knowledge, if they are not committing any crime, meaning as long as the person recording is not doing it for legal or investigative purposes.

But to be honest, the problem to me, again, is how people behave online and how they gang with each others. Harassing, doxxing, and insulting people online should have consequences. It's really bad that people will write things online they might never say in front of people.

There is always a grey area about what you can do and not do about data that has other people in it. The internet has not been a good thing for privacy.

ghaff10• 8 years ago

It depends on the jurisdiction (2 party consent vs. 1 party, etc.). It depends if there was an "expectation of privacy." It depends if the image or video is being used for a commercial purpose like advertising. [ADDED: I'm mostly discussing the US here.]

This case is probably questionable but, to your point, if I take a picture of you canoodling in a public park I'm perfectly within my rights to publish that image so long as it's not for marketing or advertising purposes (if people are recognizable).

Gargoyle2• 8 years ago

I think the tweeter may end up having problems over the fact that she did try to exploit the tweets for fame and advantage. If it had been just sharing observations about something happening around her, she'd likely be fine. Trying to gain personally from the story makes it much more shaky on an ethical level for me.

And there's no excuse for encouraging people to seek out the subject's identity. Awful idea all around.

masklinn2• 8 years ago

This case is probably questionable but, to your point, if I take a picture of you canoodling in a public park I'm perfectly within my rights to publish that image so long as it's not for marketing or advertising purposes (if people are recognizable).

It depends on the jurisdiction.

Mainland europe tends to have pretty strong personality rights, especially (but not solely) for non-public persons (e.g. people who aren't politicians or athletes or stars or more generally in the public consciousness).

And in many countries there you would not be within your rights to publish a specific image of a couple "canoodling in a public park". You would if you were taking a picture of something else entirely (e.g. a crowd, a public event, a landmark or monument) and they just happened to be in the frame, but not if they were the subject.

prepend5• 8 years ago

I’ve seen similar interactions where people seem to think they have a lot more power over their image than they do legally, or certainly seem like, to me, ethical should have.

I was in a local public street market and I was trying to take a picture of an o next sitting on a vendor’s table (not sure if it was a lamp, sculpture, or something else).

The guy became very irate, came out from behind the table, started yelling, bumped his chest to mine, and said I couldn’t take a picture and that I had to leave or he would call “management” and “the police.”

It was very odd and interesting because he’s set up in a public place. He wasn’t really up for discussion, but when I said that it was legal to take pictures of public spaces he said that he didn’t want me to and if I didn’t respect his wishes I had to leave. I was standing in the street where his table was set up, so it was doubly odd.

Legally, in the US, it’s fine to take photos in public spaces (and usually even sell them) [0] but I can’t find opinion poll data to see if it’s common for people to think this should be restricted.

I try to think of how this will play out given trends in tech and transhumanism. Eventually we’ll likely have total clarity archives of everything we experience. How do we balance people’s freedom to their own senses vs people’s preferences?

I think we’re covered with current laws to prevent illegal acts done with the photos (fraud, harassment, etc). But not sure what we should do to stop photos or help people not care about photos.

[0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_...

ghaff10• 8 years ago

I'm not sure that's a great example. In the US, legally, you're probably right. As a matter of good manners, if a vendor at a crafts fair in a public space puts up a "No photos please" sign, I'm going to respect their wishes. They're paying for a stall to sell things, not to be a photo subject.

If I'm shooting pics on a street or a park and someone makes it clear they don't want their picture taken, I'm not going to insist on my legal rights. (BTW, this is a different case from officials saying I can't take pictures of some public space because security or whatever--although I mostly won't care enough to try to make a point.)

Just because something's legal, doesn't mean you have to insist on doing it against someone's wishes.

awinder• 8 years ago

Seinfeld and Galifianakis had an interesting chat in Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee about privacy & fame. What I took from it is that people broadly have different privacy expectations and even would label the same settings as public vs. private. Anyways, I was already thinking about that conversation, but it’s even more interesting to see it played down to the level of any random person.

lostmsu4• 8 years ago

How about we drop that sort of privacy altogether? It is only a problem because people are taught to keep their personal lives personal.

imsofuture• 8 years ago

Great point. When did you last have sex and with who? Can you post your picture and theirs for us?

lostmsu4• 8 years ago

That's very googlable: I am married. Do you really want to know the exact hour?

ajross• 8 years ago

...posts the anonymized account.

You don't really think that's a solution. You just want it to be a solution for everyone else.

LyndsySimon• 8 years ago

On the other hand, I use my real full name here and most everywhere else. I agree that explicitly rejecting anonymity is a solution, but strongly disagree that it would work for everyone or should be forced on anyone.

nicwolff• 8 years ago

OK – you first! Everything you do or say in public will now be documented and that documentation easily searchable under your real name. Have a nice day!

lmm• 8 years ago

I grew up in a village, where effectively everyone knew everything everyone else had done in public.

It wasn't the best, but it was ok.

lostmsu4• 8 years ago

Good! That would definitely make people bullshit less.

veridies• 8 years ago

There’s a serious problem when the degree of attention becomes asymmetrical. Many more people can focus on you than you can focus on in return, and flood every line of communication you have (digital or in real life) with hateful or harassing messages. Our infrastructure isn’t built for this; you can’t sort through emails or texts fast enough to eliminate the unsolicited ones, your voicemail will run out of space, and your ability to walk to the store may become literally impossible when a mob of people surround you. We are also not built psychologically to be okay having to monitor literally millions of potential threats or allies. There is a reason celebrities have to hire people whose sole job it is to protect them from this sort of harassment, and those are people who have already opted out of privacy.

lostmsu4• 8 years ago

Does not seem like an intractable problem: penalize obstruction of free movement, mandate cryptographically signed approval of email contact for organizations, filter the rest with a whitelist.

Not saying it is easy, but definitely not impossible.

coldcode• 8 years ago

Besides the disgusting nature of this "stunt", having commercial entities like the Alaska Airlines and T-Mobile is where the disgust really goes up the scale, a good deed - really? Can I record the CEO of Alaska Airlines' family in their backyard and broadcast it widely on Twitter, is that a good deed? No, it isn't.

sorokod4• 8 years ago

No - not a good deed, but very educational.

ljm2• 8 years ago

I feel like modern tech and social media are exposing just how little we respect boundaries, as a culture and a society. This is a huge violation but it happens all the time.

It’s terrifying, and because those whose boundaries are violated quite rightly choose to stay anonymous, you only hear the projection from those who have deluded themselves into thinking they’re doing good, despite the fact it was never asked for.

There are good deeds and then pure sociopathy; ego massaging, narcissism...I have to wonder how much envy was involved in that.

This isn’t about losing privacy in public, it’s respecting the fucking boundaries. People need their space, they don’t need others leeching from it to benefit themselves.

Confusion• 8 years ago

There's no need to lay the blame at 'culture' and 'society'. The problem is that you only need a thousand assholes in the million that read your story to cause major problems. Even in the most amazing culture and society you may expect 1 in a 1000 to be an asshole.

I think most humans are reasonable people. Many are even great people, no matter how much you may disagree with them about many small things. The problem is just the 1 asshole in a 1000 that has an outsized influence.

ljm2• 8 years ago

Blame isn’t a good word for this (not what I intended either) because it suggests superiority, knowing better.

If we are not engaged in leading by example then it does come back to culture and society.

So, I agree but not entirely. Twitter and modern social media is practically a democratized manifestation of the paparazzi and the gossip mag. Gossip in this form is toxic as fuck - we’re not small villages where everybody knows each other any more.

projektir3• 8 years ago

The effect of these things is often significant due to how poorly managed some channels are, though. And it's not always due to large size, it happens in schools all the time and we call it bullying.

For instance, this kind of thing could affect your job and lose you your job, which shouldn't actually be a thing, and we should ask why is this a thing or why is this a problem?

Consider SWATting, it only works because there's a framework in place to make it work.

Why are threats effective?

A lot of this is preexisting problems that manifest in bullying and stalking and frankly they're not handled very well, the victim often has little to no recourse. So it more seems like we do not have good solutions to these issues, socially OR legally.

lkrubner• 8 years ago

If you disrupt someone's career, or their personal life, to advance your own career and fame, then you are certainly liable for damages, in the normal legal sense, unless you can prove public interest. If the targeted woman had been an elected politician, it might be possible to prove public interest, but in this case, public interest, in the legal sense, seems unlikely. And Blair has already admitted she did this to advance her career:

-----------------

“I’m an actress, comedian and a writer and so is my dude. Also if anyone wants to send us plane tickets we are more than happy to try and find your very own #PlaneBae,” she tweeted, before asking for a job at BuzzFeed. Brands also jumped into the fray, as brands are wont to do. Alaska Airlines called what Blair did a “good deed” and offered her a free flight. T-Mobile offered Blair free Wi-Fi.

---------------------

zamalek• 8 years ago

Blair has posted a public apology.[1] It's arguably self-serving and there are people defending her actions. This whole situation is what is wrong with social media; refined and concentrated.

[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/roseybeeme/status/101671128167022...

stevew20• 8 years ago

This is why I support physical violence! If more people were to also follow this mantra, it would immunize all of us from assholes who seek to ruin our lives on the way to fame.

qbrass• 8 years ago

They can use violence too. And since you okayed, it. They're justified in posting pictures of you lying bloodied in the street, saying karma's a bitch.

Unidentified Plane-Bae Woman’s Statement Confirms the Worst

Related Stories