It seems the core concept of contextual integrity is still not landing.

It's not a question of surprise that public data can be scraped - I'm well aware of how the internet functions, thank you. The point, which you seem determined to evade, is about the fundamental ethics of systematically doing so and the vast difference in impact and expectation between, say, a server's own moderation logs or incidental screenshots, and a third party, globally indexed, permanent archive. The former serves limited, often known functions within that specific community; the latter is a privacy-invasive data trawl weaponizing the 'public' label. Just because a thing is technically possible doesn't grant a free pass to ignore privacy implications or users' reasonable expectations of how their contributions will be used and disseminated.

Your attempt to dismantle the 'public park' analogy only underscores your misunderstanding of it. The scenario isn't about someone yelling (an exceptional event, often a public nuisance, that might indeed attract specific attention or recording). It's the equivalent of someone systematically planting listening devices by every park bench, transcribing every casual, low-expectation conversation - like my dinner plans with my girlfriend, or a vent about my boss - and then publishing it all online, forever, simply because the park itself is 'public' and it was a technically possible thing to do. The ethical chasm between observing a public spectacle and conducting mass, indiscriminate surveillance of every day, semi-private interactions within a public space shouldn't be this difficult to grasp. One involves a specific event; the other is a dragnet.

As for flagging, I didn't touch your comment. I have never flagged a single comment on this site. Perhaps others simply disagreed with the quality, relevance or the dismissive tone of your contribution.