> In my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably still be considered private.

I'd love to see the limitations of this opinion you definitely hold honestly and without favor.

You started by posting a change.org petition that links to a deleted post - in other words an "appeal to petition" that has no evidence. Now you are suggesting there is another leak that was published (presumably not mentioned in this petition?) that also has no evidence. Where is the evidence?

Everything from an actual search engine request for these posts (which to be clear, are deleted) suggests that these are anonymized and public, and contain no identifying information.

> In my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably be considered private.

How is that relevant to BSky's terms of service? The information was public and did not identify the person.

> But even if not, Singal says the same leaker directly contacted him with a new leak, which he also published.

I notice that you didn't say whether this new leak was private information, or whether it was also already public knowledge, or whether it in any way identified a person.