3 ms·
Why? Communities die, people die, and more importantly, they change. While it used to be that if you wrote something stupid on a wall or carved it into a tree,
by ivoras 9y ago
Why?
Communities die, people die, and more importantly, they change. While it used to be that if you wrote something stupid on a wall or carved it into a tree, with a natural expectation that it will get erased or destroyed over time, now even when behemoth social networks shut down, there are apparently enthusiasts which want to conserve every creepy pasta and highdea everywhere. Just because it can be done.
At best, the users should have been given the chance to download whatever they want for private use, and the rest should rightly get obliterated.
Many people would object less to Facebook if it probably deleted all content not marked "important" after a year, rather than creepily storing everything ever.
- gizmo686 9y agoBecause we can. Historians love glimpses into the mundane of past societies. For the first time in history it is actually possible to archive these mundane aspects of everyday life like we archive the "important" stuff. Imagine how ecstatic historians we would if we suddenly discovered an archive of even 1% of the smalltalk that went on in bars during the 1800s.
- brian-armstrong 9y agoBut these people are still alive. It's not a historical dig, it's a creepy collection of one-off thoughts and conversations from living persons.
- gizmo686 9y agoThey wont be alive in 100 years, but by then it would be to late to archive data we destroy today. I have no problem with embargoing these massive archives for to protect the privacy of those involved while still allowing future historians access. For instance, the US census records do not become publically available until 72 years after the census was conducted. In the case where the data was publicly accessible in the first place (as I believe to be the case here), I do not see any reason (EDIT: except copyright) to do this. If we are talking about something like Facebook shutting down (or this case if the Miiverse had private conversations), I would be arguing for a similar embargo on private data.
- shakna 9y agoOne of the most exciting archeological pieces we have from the Roman empire, is graffiti spouting the same mundane things people scrawl on bathroom walls today. > At best, the users should have been given the chance to download whatever they want for private use, and the rest should rightly get obliterated. This is a hard one. The right to be forgotten is probably something the average person should have. But equally, human history can be understood and shaped by some of the most mundane things, and our descendants have a right to review that. To understand it. I don't have a solution to it. > Many people would object less to Facebook if it probably deleted all content not marked "important" after a year, rather than creepily storing everything ever. It is not their storage of data I find creepy. It is the fact that this permanent storage is actively used, sold and traded. A deleted profile shouldn't be able to follow you around the web, and continue to build upon itself.
- lj3 9y agoThe "The right to be forgotten" applies to private information made public against a person's will, such as revenge porn or showing up in search engine listings. It does not apply to content willing contributed to a public community, like HN, reddit or Miiverse. What facebook does still applies, though, because a lot of the data they use, sell and trade is data their users think is private.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]