Is stalking always unethical?

[Toast]

What if you stalked your online friend and his parents to make sure he isn't dead after he stops logging in for a long time?

[Danksama]

Opprinnelig skrevet av 󠀡󠀡:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Callista:

What if you stalked your online friend and his parents to make sure he isn't dead after he stops logging in for a long time?

If his account is public for all to see, then it isn't stalking, just "following".

It would still be a collosal dumb idea too if your concern was that your friend might be dead. At that point you should call the police or hire a professional detective or something.

[Danksama]

Opprinnelig skrevet av 󠀡󠀡:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Danksama:

It would still be a collosal dumb idea too if your concern was that your friend might be dead. At that point you should call the police or hire a professional detective or something.

Kek I don't think OP means it in that much of a serious tone,
I think he means dead account like inactive.
If it really mattered to OP then he'd go check up on his mate IRL.

Why else would you stalk this theoretical friend's parents? What would they have to do with it? They might not even be on Steam or have Facebook or whatever.

[Danksama]

Opprinnelig skrevet av 󠀡󠀡:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Danksama:

Why else would you stalk this theoretical friend's parents? What would they have to do with it? They might not even be on Steam or have Facebook or whatever.

> Why else would you stalk this theoretical friend's parents?

OP never said anything about "theoretical friends" unless you know more on the subject that you'd care to elaborate on?

It's in the OP
'what if you stalked your online friend and his parents?'
This online friend is theoretical

[Табушка]

get out of here stalker

[Spogg]

Not if your an assassin.

[Radene]

Kinda, yes.

[Toast]

Thanks for the quality discussion.

[s w e k]

> Doesn't engage in conversation with the user's who posted
> Pins answer that agrees with them
"Thanks for the quality discussion"

[Toast]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Duckie:

> Doesn't engage in conversation with the user's who posted
> Pins answer that agrees with them
"Thanks for the quality discussion"

:cozyhitman2::taloslol:

Well, I’ve considered all the arguments. If you want to debate, I’m still here.

[s w e k]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Callista:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Duckie:

> Doesn't engage in conversation with the user's who posted
> Pins answer that agrees with them
"Thanks for the quality discussion"

Well, I’ve considered all the arguments. If you want to debate, I’m still here.

Not looking to debate. I just think it's funny.

[s w e k]

Opprinnelig skrevet av StockPiston:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Duckie:

> Doesn't engage in conversation with the user's who posted
> Pins answer that agrees with them
"Thanks for the quality discussion"

It's one of the many reasons why I should stop being constructive with my replies. I waste my time.

You can always tell from the people that post just to get replies from the people that post for discussion.

[Toast]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Duckie:

Opprinnelig skrevet av StockPiston:

It's one of the many reasons why I should stop being constructive with my replies. I waste my time.

You can always tell from the people that post just to get replies from the people that post for discussion.

Of course I want a good discussion, but who has time to respond to 30+ posts? I read them all, though.

[CryHavoc&LetSlipTheCreepsOfWar]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Riedy:

Yes. Online stalking is alright as long as you only access public information shared by them.

But when the online stalker focuses all their attention on one person it becomes creepy, even if the information has been made public by the target.

[Toast]

Opprinnelig skrevet av CryHavoc&LetSlipTheCreepsOfWar:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Riedy:

Yes. Online stalking is alright as long as you only access public information shared by them.

But when the online stalker focuses all their attention on one person it becomes creepy, even if the information has been made public by the target.

It may be creepy, but is it unethical?

[s w e k]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Callista:

It may be creepy, but is it unethical?

That's kind of a hard question to answer because this is a philosophical arguement based on morals. It really depends on the person's beliefs.

If we're going by definition:

stalk
[stôk]

VERB
stalks (third person present) · stalked (past tense) · stalked (past participle) · stalking (present participle)

pursue or approach stealthily.
"a cat stalking a bird"

synonyms:
creep up on · trail · follow · shadow · track down · go after · be after · dog · hound · course · hunt · pursue · chase · give chase to · run after · tail

harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention.
"for five years she was stalked by a man who would taunt and threaten her"

(I put that there to let you know I'm going by the exact definition, not because I don't think you know what it means).

and your scenario in the post:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Callista:

What if you stalked your online friend and his parents to make sure he isn't dead after he stops logging in for a long time?

If by "stalking" you mean constantly checking the friend and the friend's parents profile then I'd say it's not "morally" wrong. Riedy is right that they decided to put that information online for other's to see and it's free for other's to see. If you mean "stalk" by follow the friend and the parents on everything they do and have an unhealthy obssesion to the point where it's harmful (and you're seeing information that they did not want revealed), then I'd say it's wrong.