5 ms·

Maybe I'm out of touch with HN, but kudos to Medium. I delete the article for a reason, why should someone read it years later (regardless of the website or for

Maybe I'm out of touch with HN, but kudos to Medium. I delete the article for a reason, why should someone read it years later (regardless of the website or format.) It's my article

leereeves 9y ago
What would credibility mean in a world where lies, mistakes, and fits of emotion could be erased completely?
- psyc 9y ago
  I'm not sure I understand the question. As it is now, the vast majority of my transgressions in real life disappear into a memory hole. What makes the internet so special in that regard? You want there to be a permanent digital record of people's mistakes, why? So that those best at hiding their defects can get ahead? Why is that desirable?
  - leereeves 9y ago
    For roughly the same reason schools administer tests and keep permanent records of grades. An author's track record for honesty and accuracy is (was?) the foundation of credibility.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - krapp 9y ago
      And yet the same community that insists the internet act as a permanent, immutable and irrevocable platform for "judging honesty" tends to object when intelligence agencies, law enforcement and employers use their data for just that purpose. Even if it were the case that one could only judge a person's honesty and accuracy from the "track record" of content published to the web that can be traced to their identity, this assumes that all such content is unbiased and factual, and that any interpretation of that content would also be unbiased and factual, but that isn't true.
- bartread 9y ago
  The combination of right to be forgotten and GDPR practically mandate that this be the case and, as others have pointed out, in the pre-internet era there would often be no record, unless it had hit the print media. Most criminal offences are expunged (at least in the UK) from your criminal record after a number of years, so why should the internet be allowed to keep a permanent record after your debt to society has been paid?
  - leereeves 9y ago
    Aren't we talking about authors here, not criminals? When articles were in print, authors had a "permanent record".
    - bartread 9y ago
      For sure, although we definitely strayed into moral territory. Even limiting ourselves to authors though, that's a concept whose meaning is radically different nowadays (when it means anyone who can type - including on a touchscreen - and knows how to hit the publish button on Medium/Wordpress/Tumblr or wherever) to what it was in the past, when it meant having to go through at least some amount of gatekeeping at the relevant publication. Would you really want some sort of naively politicised rant that you wrote as a teen and no longer believe to affect your ability to get a job in your mid-thirties? Would that even be fair? Of course not. Yet that's absolutely realistic in a digital world that forgets nothing and where permanent and total erasure isn't an option. (To be honest, age isn't particularly a factor here: over a period of a couple of decades anyone's beliefs can change quite substantially, and plenty do. Granted, plenty also don't, but entrenchment is a choice, even if one made passively).
- baby 9y ago
  When you write a piece, if you want to delete it so that no one else can read it, it should be your right. Unless of course you're a journalist and you have a duty to integrity or something like that, but I'm talking about people like you and me who might decide one day that they do not like what they wrote anymore.
  - Crespyl 9y ago
    > When you write a piece, if you want to delete it so that no one else can read it, it should be your right. Right up until you publish it in a public journal or newspaper, at which point you have no right to demand that every other reader destroy their copy.
gambiting 9y ago
So if you publish a book, and then pull it out of stores, people who have the copies, and all libraries, should burn their copies, right?
- onetimemanytime 9y ago
  Nope because they bought the book. It's their property. My article is MY property.
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    Your property is the copy on your computer(s) and the right to control who can make more copies. Once you choose to make a copy and transmit it to someone else (perhaps as a response to a HTTP GET request), that copy becomes their property. Your property rights end at the first sale[1]. If you don't want someone to own a copy of your article, don't give it to them or get them to agree to a contract[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine [2] A TOS is not a contract. If you want to use a contract, make your offer, wait for someone to understand and accept it before you send them a copy of your article.
    - onetimemanytime 9y ago
      >>Once you choose to make a copy and transmit it to someone else (perhaps as a response to a HTTP GET request), that copy becomes their property. Has anyone tried your argument in a copyright case? Say, I access a NYT article, and according to your reasoning it becomes mine the moment their site show it to me. If it's mine I can publish and monetize it.
      - pdkl95 9y ago
        > If it's mine I can publish and monetize it. Yes, you can[1][2] monetize (resell) your copy. You do not have the right to make new copies. This ability is granted explicitly[3] in 17 U.S. Code § 109 (a): >> [...] the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. [...] [1] In some situations there may be additional limitations of your rights. (e.g. performance of a copyright-protected work, which technically creates a new derivative work) [2] I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Consult a real lawyer for actual legal advice. [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/109 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/109

Maybe I'm out of touch with HN, but kudos to Medium. I delete the article for a reason, why should someone read it years later (regardless of the website or format.) It's my article

leereeves 9y ago

What would credibility mean in a world where lies, mistakes, and fits of emotion could be erased completely?

psyc 9y ago
I'm not sure I understand the question. As it is now, the vast majority of my transgressions in real life disappear into a memory hole. What makes the internet so special in that regard? You want there to be a permanent digital record of people's mistakes, why? So that those best at hiding their defects can get ahead? Why is that desirable?
- leereeves 9y ago
  For roughly the same reason schools administer tests and keep permanent records of grades. An author's track record for honesty and accuracy is (was?) the foundation of credibility.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 9y ago
    And yet the same community that insists the internet act as a permanent, immutable and irrevocable platform for "judging honesty" tends to object when intelligence agencies, law enforcement and employers use their data for just that purpose. Even if it were the case that one could only judge a person's honesty and accuracy from the "track record" of content published to the web that can be traced to their identity, this assumes that all such content is unbiased and factual, and that any interpretation of that content would also be unbiased and factual, but that isn't true.
bartread 9y ago
The combination of right to be forgotten and GDPR practically mandate that this be the case and, as others have pointed out, in the pre-internet era there would often be no record, unless it had hit the print media. Most criminal offences are expunged (at least in the UK) from your criminal record after a number of years, so why should the internet be allowed to keep a permanent record after your debt to society has been paid?
- leereeves 9y ago
  Aren't we talking about authors here, not criminals? When articles were in print, authors had a "permanent record".
  - bartread 9y ago
    For sure, although we definitely strayed into moral territory. Even limiting ourselves to authors though, that's a concept whose meaning is radically different nowadays (when it means anyone who can type - including on a touchscreen - and knows how to hit the publish button on Medium/Wordpress/Tumblr or wherever) to what it was in the past, when it meant having to go through at least some amount of gatekeeping at the relevant publication. Would you really want some sort of naively politicised rant that you wrote as a teen and no longer believe to affect your ability to get a job in your mid-thirties? Would that even be fair? Of course not. Yet that's absolutely realistic in a digital world that forgets nothing and where permanent and total erasure isn't an option. (To be honest, age isn't particularly a factor here: over a period of a couple of decades anyone's beliefs can change quite substantially, and plenty do. Granted, plenty also don't, but entrenchment is a choice, even if one made passively).
baby 9y ago
When you write a piece, if you want to delete it so that no one else can read it, it should be your right. Unless of course you're a journalist and you have a duty to integrity or something like that, but I'm talking about people like you and me who might decide one day that they do not like what they wrote anymore.
- Crespyl 9y ago
  > When you write a piece, if you want to delete it so that no one else can read it, it should be your right. Right up until you publish it in a public journal or newspaper, at which point you have no right to demand that every other reader destroy their copy.

gambiting 9y ago

So if you publish a book, and then pull it out of stores, people who have the copies, and all libraries, should burn their copies, right?

onetimemanytime 9y ago
Nope because they bought the book. It's their property. My article is MY property.
- pdkl95 9y ago
  Your property is the copy on your computer(s) and the right to control who can make more copies. Once you choose to make a copy and transmit it to someone else (perhaps as a response to a HTTP GET request), that copy becomes their property. Your property rights end at the first sale[1]. If you don't want someone to own a copy of your article, don't give it to them or get them to agree to a contract[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine [2] A TOS is not a contract. If you want to use a contract, make your offer, wait for someone to understand and accept it before you send them a copy of your article.
  - onetimemanytime 9y ago
    >>Once you choose to make a copy and transmit it to someone else (perhaps as a response to a HTTP GET request), that copy becomes their property. Has anyone tried your argument in a copyright case? Say, I access a NYT article, and according to your reasoning it becomes mine the moment their site show it to me. If it's mine I can publish and monetize it.
    - pdkl95 9y ago
      > If it's mine I can publish and monetize it. Yes, you can[1][2] monetize (resell) your copy. You do not have the right to make new copies. This ability is granted explicitly[3] in 17 U.S. Code § 109 (a): >> [...] the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. [...] [1] In some situations there may be additional limitations of your rights. (e.g. performance of a copyright-protected work, which technically creates a new derivative work) [2] I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Consult a real lawyer for actual legal advice. [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/109 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/109