You may remember a public debate that was sparked not too long ago by a BuzzFeed story about sexual assault: Are tweets public? What sort of judgment should journalists use when amplifying statements made by regular people on social media?

Anil Dash returned to the topic today, with a post on Medium titled “What is Public?” In it, Dash brings up concerns about how industry leaders in tech and media conceive of privacy — typically, he argues, however it best serves their own interests.

It has so quickly become acceptable practice within mainstream web publishing companies to reuse people’s tweets as the substance of an article that special tools have sprung up to help them do so. But inside these newsrooms, there is no apparent debate over whether it’s any different to embed a tweet from the President of the United States or from a vulnerable young activist who might not have anticipated her words being attached to her real identity, where she can be targeted by anonymous harassers.

The essay generated a wide array of responses, many positive, from those who see Dash’s argument as a defense of the less privileged.

The latest from @anildash on the increasing simplification of "public" and who it benefits is really good: https://t.co/SBGP9DlTYf

— Christina Xu (@xuhulk) July 24, 2014

.@anildash, the hannah arendt of the internet: https://t.co/o4OmtKRTHC

— cale g weissman (@caleweissman) July 24, 2014

There was also considerable pushback.

@anildash @digiphile The Twitter TOS is very clear: “What you say on Twitter may be viewed all around the world instantly.”

— Burt Herman (@burtherman) July 24, 2014

@anildash I disagree. When you hit publish, you're saying "I want the public to see this." That's different than an overheard conversation.

— Kaili Joy Gray (@KailiJoy) July 24, 2014

@anildash there are many places online where friends can have "conversations in the park," in semi-private contexts. Twitter isn't 1 of them

— Alex Howard (@digiphile) July 24, 2014

Twitter is like a coffee shop if Starbucks were the size of a football stadium and everyone were wearing a microphone

— Sam Faulkner Biddle (@samfbiddle) July 24, 2014

Eventually, Gawker’s Joel Johnson ended up inviting Dash to a public debate of the issue, one which Gawker falls very decidedly on the opposite side of.

My expectation for privacy for this tweet is that it is for everyone except the following: @anildash,

— Joel Johnson (@joeljohnson) July 24, 2014

"What if we replaced law with feelings?" —Anil Dash

— Joel Johnson (@joeljohnson) July 24, 2014

@samfbiddle @anildash honestly Tho I would love to debate this in person and put it online

— Joel Johnson (@joeljohnson) July 24, 2014

Later, however, Dash repeatedly argued that the majority of his detractors where white men whose privilege — of gender, race, and class — makes it harder for them to understand what’s at stake in the private versus public debate.

There may be no greater online joy than writing a piece where every angry reply is from a dude with a blue checkmark who works in media.

— Anil Dash (@anildash) July 24, 2014

Not everyone, however, felt that Dash’s observation was proof that republishing posts is unfairly harmful.

btw, nice try on derailing convo by saying "white men" are emotional about it @anildash. That has what to do with criticism exactly?

— Rebecca Schoenkopf (@commiegirl1) July 24, 2014

Ultimately, the debate seems to boil down to whether we are concerned with the legal issue — in which case, tweets are public — or an ethical issue, which is more complicated. Most journalists would probably happily embed a newsworthy tweet, though many would likely seek permission and confirmation of the information therein before doing so. But Dash’s essay does engender worthwhile conversation about data, surveillance, and what our treatment of publics today will mean for privacy in the future.

(For what it’s worth, I didn’t ask anyone if I could embed their tweets in this blog post.)