Did you read the article?

In the end, the lesson learned from my wedding was something much less obvious than the “parable of excess” that was claimed. Rather, the democratization of the media that I idealized in my youth when it was just a distant, blurry dream, suddenly seems much less worthy of idolatry now that it’s become a stark reality. The lesson for me, felt acutely over the past two weeks, ended up being a familiar moral to a familiar story: “Be careful what you wish for — you might just get it.”

and

In particular, we need to consider stronger privacy laws here in the U.S., a basic right to privacy along the lines of the laws enjoyed by the citizens of most Western European nations. We are all at risk of becoming “public figures” in a world where the media has expanded to include nearly everyone. In such a world, our defamation laws need to be updated to provide individuals with the protection from public persecution that they deserve. We also need to reinforce our personal privacy by beefing up the intellectual property laws that govern the personal content that we generate and share via services like Facebook.

EDIT: and

Economically speaking, I profited handsomely from the destruction of the media as we knew it. The rest of the world did not make out so well, and society certainly got the worse end of the bargain. The decentralization of media got off to a promising start, but like so many other half-baked revolutions, it never fulfilled its early promise. In its present form, social media may be doing more harm than good. Perhaps we should have expected this — technology always leads the way, society and government inevitably play catch-up.

Yes. I did read it – and I stand by what I said. I find it hugely disingenuous and/or self-absorbed that only now that the shoe is on the other foot, Mr. Parker changes his tune... only after getting rich by exploiting things not so distant from that which he wants to curtail now.

Edit: The additional quote does nothing to change my point. He doesn't dispute what I said about him profiting from his actions – but he still wants personal sympathy.

I agree with his larger point, privacy matters, but I find this messenger to be distinctly self-serving in all of his actions.

I think it's fair, if you're the underdog against the proverbial fatcats and then you realize in a turn of events that you're the fatcat. I think it better he come to his senses than remain ignorant and hold to some naive principle he had as a kid. Let's get off that high moral horse, people change opinions and judgments, it wouldn't be prudent to hold that against them.

Except the revelation rings hollow when he's still sitting with a fortune made by doing so. He's trying to have it both ways and has no qualms getting his and then fighting to keep the spoils (i.e.: his lavish life and the privacy surrounding it are absolutely spoils of his previous actions)

It's hardly (just?) a high moral horse. I dislike the whole do as I say and not as I do attitude.

I'd agree with you IFF he was asking for compensation after being wronged. As you pointed out, he exploited, in one aspect or another, reaping the benefits at the expense of others. Conversely it happened to him.

It is fair to point out the observation post introspection of being on both sides of the equation, exploiter and exploited.

It is not be fair to ask for compensation for exploitation and not willing to give compensation for exploiting.

Sean Parker has as much "wounded private citizen" cred as Mark Zuckerberg's sister who was ousted from Facebook's marketing department and immediately had a meltdown when someone reposted a photo of her from Twitter to Facebook.

General rule: if you possess millions of dollars because of your association with Facebook, your sudden personal revelation that people can talk about you on Facebook in ways that might hurt your feelings makes you sound like an entitled idiot circa 2006.