just because something is public doesn't mean it should be shared with everyone, imagine you and your (ex: facebook group) have a nice spot near a public lake that you worked to clean up and even put a nice fireplace / furniture around it and then some tiktoker comes and says check out this amazing spot and now it's ruined.

Yes it's public, anyone outside the group can find and see it, but it's clearly meant to be enjoyed by the people who made it or/and happened to come across it by chance.

> imagine you and your (ex: facebook group) have a nice spot near a public lake that you worked to clean up and even put a nice fireplace / furniture around it and then some tiktoker comes and says check out this amazing spot and now it's ruined.

This happens all the time though, and it's expected it might happen when you do it.

I live nearby a couple of lakes within a nice little forest, me and some friends found a spot a couple of summers ago a bit out from the trails which we improved to have a fire pit, some log benches, built a mobile sauna, and left notes that its intended to be used publicly. We knew that at some point it'd be found, and potentially ruined. It kinda happened, someone broke the sauna, we didn't feel we were owed anything since we decided to make it public, we knew the dangers.

it was just the result of me trying to express the loss of respect for public spaces / content and content in as little words as possible I could go on forever writing an entire book about changes in the definition of public and private and how disrespecting such spaces / content is how we end up with only powerful people having such things while the rest lose it entirely as they fight over whatever remains.

It’s public or it’s not public.

boiling things down to a binary output has always turned out great I presume

Well, in this case it is. Regardless the analogy is beside the point because this problem has a technical solution: Bluesky could disallow posts from being embedded per the author’s request.

Also, does that message reflect the author’s preferences at the time they write that post, or is it possible it was enabled after Gizmodo embedded it?

In this case it does. I use that same spot next to eh lake to rest with my wife and watch the ducks and appreciate nature. But then you can into the public area, changed it and added furniture and even a fireplace! Treating it like private land owned by you and then you get upset when others use it. There is an inherent disrespect and narcissism in the example you provided.

If I host an event at a public park and hang up a sign "no journalists allowed, no telling anyone about this event, it's our little secret" I don't think it's reasonable to expect that to be honored. I wouldn't be offended to see that reported in the local paper. Quite the opposite.

At a public park I think you have no more right to keep it secret than someone else has to talk about it to others.

as I tried to imply, it's about being respectful, all there is to it.

Nah, I think the point is that if you do something deliberately in public, be it social media or something tangible in the real world, you relinquish control over its usage.

If you don’t like this, then you can either try to restrict things to an extent e.g. by obscurity, like posting a YouTube video as unlisted, or building your fireplace somewhere public but remote or hidden, or you keep things enforceably private, like a private online group, or building on someone’s land.

in the end it is about intent and being respectful of that intent here.

These things happened, are notable, and even (or especially) embarrassing things should be remembered for history.

A compromise would be to have screenshotted and crossed out names.

it's simply a way to express and expand meaning of a statement without having to write an entire essay backing such statement.