A post on Radionewz.net caught my interest mainly because someone broke a promise. The account holder had what is known as a protected account. That means that in order to view the content of that account and communicate with that person, you have to be INVITED. This falls under an understanding of “what is said on this account STAYS on this account and is not to be sent to OUTSIDERS.” The legal definition is : A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. It means that there is a degree of TRUST given to the individual who was invited into the account. In some cases, the release of a post of that nature,  is a violation of telecommunications law.


By someone taking that screenshot and sending it to Radio, it demonstrates that the person CANNOT be trusted. That person has NO integrity. Radio, for some reason DID NOT SHOW WHO IT WAS that took that screenshot. Why? Because RADIO wanted the SPY to report on things that person clearly was NOT INTENDED for people OUTSIDE the protected account to view.

I remember a recent tirade by Radio because someone posted screenshots of a blog Alexandra Goddard had a PRIVATE blog where she made it abundantly clear she did not want the information out. The obvious reason is that she did not want her STALKING in public. Radio declared that the person who provided that information should be arrested for violating the agreement with Goddard. When it was found out that Holly was linking the actual source to her own blog, Radio suddenly went silent.

Now that someone has done the same thing to this person’s account, Radio ignores this obvious breech of trust and made a joke out of it. The account holder had no choice but to purge her account and then reestablish it with people SHE CAN TRUST.

What Radio needs to wonder is, just how trustworthy is the person who made public PRIVATE content? Could that same person violate the trust of someone else should that person feel the need to do so? It has happened before and can you guess by whom?

Stay tuned