You're the one who shared this information. You, not third parties. You went out of scope of the agreement you suggested yourself. This does take credibility away from you.

We are a third party. The conversation was between Gmuxx and Aggroed. Again, once a conversation leaves the confines of two people and is shared to a third party, expectation of privacy in those communications disappears.

What have we contradicted?

As for the users on this list, we have reached out to a number of them, both individually and as a group. Some never replied. Others were less than reticent. However, I would argue that exposing an attempt to pressure voters by exerting undue influence for political reasons is something that is worthy of community awareness. Given the communication shared by Aggroed and Gmuxx, one can easily draw a logical inference between the two.

As for the unwanted exposure and naming names, voting/unvoting witness is visible on the blockchain and publicly available through a number of different sources. Granted, this information is collated in a particular format here, but all of this information is publicly available.

We agree that being a witness is a really big deal, which is why when we discovered that there was the possibility of coercive influence on people's witness votes, we decided to go forward with this. Prior to this, as stated, we made people who could be impacted by Aggro's decision aware of it, in the event they were not already aware. We made no public statement at the time this happened.