Some of these qualified privileges may also apply in Cyberspace. For instance, one who is maligned or attacked by cheap shots on a bulletin board may have the privilege of posting corrective material in one's own defense. If one maligns an attacker in return, one's statements may be privileged if made in good faith and with reasonable support. Second, all I've ever said is that a person speaking the truth cannot properly be held liable for defamation. That's not to say that truthful statements are never liability creating.
Liability exists even if the material published is true.
Remember that the harm caused by defamation is the diminished reputation of the subject in the eyes of the audience. The personal feelings of the slandered person are not strictly in issue. In privacy cases, the primary damage has to do with the distress the subject feels from exposure of a private matter to public view. The two legal theories protect different personal interests. Most of it is unsolicited and some of it is downright annoying and even offensive.