4 ms·

> Key feature of any social network should be 'right to be forgotten' I've said this before, the only data an user should have the right to remove should have

> Key feature of any social network should be 'right to be forgotten' I've said this before, the only data an user should have the right to remove should have no value to someone else. I absolutely hate reddit threads filled with "[deleted]", people deleting their Mediafire accounts, picture hosts removing infrequently fetched images and so on and on. It's so hard to avoid "digital Alzheimer's" it's infuriating and we should curb it rather than encourage it. I do myself want to delete old FB Messenger conversations, but I'd be seriously pissed seeing some old chat containing only my incoherent ramblings. I think one-sided deletion isn't the solution, fine-tuned privacy settings (and thus hiding and possible recovery) is. It's important that we don't forget to deal with this before we actually do start to notice that "f* shouldn't have deleted that".

krapp 8y ago
>I've said this before, the only data an user should have the right to remove should have no value to someone else. >I absolutely hate reddit threads filled with "[deleted]", people deleting their Mediafire accounts, picture hosts removing infrequently fetched images and so on and on. I disagree - the right of users to assert control over their identity and data supersedes your desire to control or use that data for your own purposes, or your desire to have the web act as an immutable historical record, which it was never designed or intended to do. I agree that Reddit threads with deleted content are annoying, but that's an implementation detail Reddit chooses to have and could likewise choose not to have (the way Hacker News chooses to make it impossible to delete user accounts, change usernames or delete comments after a certain time.) But the premise that people should be allowed to delete content from the web at all shouldn't be up for debate. >I think one-sided deletion isn't the solution, fine-tuned privacy settings (and thus hiding and possible recovery) is. Both can be solutions, but I believe the former is a necessity.
- dcbadacd 8y ago
  > the right of users to assert control over their identity and data supersedes your desire to control or use that data for your own purposes The right of users to assert control over their identity is different from the control over all of the data the user put online. Your right to your data should end with my right to my data. As I said, data deletion is so often damaging it's ridiculous. > or your desire to have the web act as an immutable historical record Please don't twist my words, I never said that. > But the premise that people should be allowed to delete content from the web at all shouldn't be up for debate. I think that exactly has to be up for debate, especially with "social networks", noone is social alone thus the data shouldn't belong to that one person. I'm not saying it should be new "Facebook" that should have the control, not at all, the users should get to decide. Over time I've accumulated access to various collections of images of for example events that have happened in the past. I made those pictures, I shared them, I have control over them, do you think it's right I now go around and wipe them?
  - krapp 8y ago
    >The right of users to assert control over their identity is different from the control over all of the data the user put online. I don't believe it is - the data you put online is your online identity, for better or worse. Control of one is control of the other, especially when it comes to social media, which often has the mediation and sale of that identity as part of its business model. >Please don't twist my words, I never said that. To me, that's implied in the belief that deletion is harmful and needs to be managed. If that misrepresents your views, I apologize. But a lot of people do seem to have the concern lately that things like the "right to be forgotten" are a threat to data archiving and the public record, and they're right, but... that doesn't matter. That's the web working as intended, it's meant to be stateless and ephemeral by design. Link rot, unfortunate as it is, is a feature, not a bug. >Over time I've accumulated access to various collections of images of for example events that have happened in the past. I made those pictures, I shared them, I have control over them, do you think it's right I now go around and wipe them? Yes, if you want to, I think it's entirely your right. Why should you have the right to add data to a service, but not to delete it if you choose? Particularly when those services claim an arbitrary right to do so themselves? Mind you, I'm not saying you have the right to delete it everywhere, because that's infeasible, but you should have the right to delete what you published from whatever service you published to.
    - dcbadacd 8y ago
      > Why should you have the right to add data to a service, but not to delete it if you choose? Particularly when those services claim an arbitrary right to do so themselves? Why should I have the right to delete content that relates to other people, if I might even say important to other people? Simply because I was the first should mean that I get to say what happens to the content? > Link rot, unfortunate as it is, is a feature, not a bug. Really curious, how is it a feature, not a bug?

krapp 8y ago

>I've said this before, the only data an user should have the right to remove should have no value to someone else. >I absolutely hate reddit threads filled with "[deleted]", people deleting their Mediafire accounts, picture hosts removing infrequently fetched images and so on and on. I disagree - the right of users to assert control over their identity and data supersedes your desire to control or use that data for your own purposes, or your desire to have the web act as an immutable historical record, which it was never designed or intended to do. I agree that Reddit threads with deleted content are annoying, but that's an implementation detail Reddit chooses to have and could likewise choose not to have (the way Hacker News chooses to make it impossible to delete user accounts, change usernames or delete comments after a certain time.) But the premise that people should be allowed to delete content from the web at all shouldn't be up for debate. >I think one-sided deletion isn't the solution, fine-tuned privacy settings (and thus hiding and possible recovery) is. Both can be solutions, but I believe the former is a necessity.

dcbadacd 8y ago
> the right of users to assert control over their identity and data supersedes your desire to control or use that data for your own purposes The right of users to assert control over their identity is different from the control over all of the data the user put online. Your right to your data should end with my right to my data. As I said, data deletion is so often damaging it's ridiculous. > or your desire to have the web act as an immutable historical record Please don't twist my words, I never said that. > But the premise that people should be allowed to delete content from the web at all shouldn't be up for debate. I think that exactly has to be up for debate, especially with "social networks", noone is social alone thus the data shouldn't belong to that one person. I'm not saying it should be new "Facebook" that should have the control, not at all, the users should get to decide. Over time I've accumulated access to various collections of images of for example events that have happened in the past. I made those pictures, I shared them, I have control over them, do you think it's right I now go around and wipe them?
- krapp 8y ago
  >The right of users to assert control over their identity is different from the control over all of the data the user put online. I don't believe it is - the data you put online is your online identity, for better or worse. Control of one is control of the other, especially when it comes to social media, which often has the mediation and sale of that identity as part of its business model. >Please don't twist my words, I never said that. To me, that's implied in the belief that deletion is harmful and needs to be managed. If that misrepresents your views, I apologize. But a lot of people do seem to have the concern lately that things like the "right to be forgotten" are a threat to data archiving and the public record, and they're right, but... that doesn't matter. That's the web working as intended, it's meant to be stateless and ephemeral by design. Link rot, unfortunate as it is, is a feature, not a bug. >Over time I've accumulated access to various collections of images of for example events that have happened in the past. I made those pictures, I shared them, I have control over them, do you think it's right I now go around and wipe them? Yes, if you want to, I think it's entirely your right. Why should you have the right to add data to a service, but not to delete it if you choose? Particularly when those services claim an arbitrary right to do so themselves? Mind you, I'm not saying you have the right to delete it everywhere, because that's infeasible, but you should have the right to delete what you published from whatever service you published to.
  - dcbadacd 8y ago
    > Why should you have the right to add data to a service, but not to delete it if you choose? Particularly when those services claim an arbitrary right to do so themselves? Why should I have the right to delete content that relates to other people, if I might even say important to other people? Simply because I was the first should mean that I get to say what happens to the content? > Link rot, unfortunate as it is, is a feature, not a bug. Really curious, how is it a feature, not a bug?