5 ms·

Maybe it's an attempt at blackmailing to get something deleted? 31 Jan 2018, "I will make a donation every month. Please delete what we ask": https://twitter.c

• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• samstave 8y ago
  Serious question, in that thread some guy is attempting to have an old blog with his face pic deleted... id suport that. But then if some other news or political or corporate arm was seeking to get something deleted to prevent them from looking bad, then im against it... So what is the middle ground here, or how should one view this dilema?
  • centering 8y ago
    Archive.is is notorious for not deleting anything. Not even a dox with SSN and more.
  • reaperducer 8y ago
    You can't un-ring a bell.
    • NotAnEconomist 8y ago
      That's not an excuse for other people to sit there re-broadcasting it. There's a strong case to be made that we're actually substantially better off with certain kinds of information having a generally ephemeral and hard-to-collect nature.
    • lilyball 8y ago
      That doesn't really justify the decision to continue publishing private information. Just because someone somewhere may have access to it doesn't mean you need to make it easier for everyone to have access to it.
      • Brian_K_White 8y ago
        The point is so that anything that is available to anyone, is available to anyone else. It might have been unfortunate for some things to have ben made public in the first place, but once it's done, there is no value in letting just some people still know the truth while everyone else is subject to manipulation by a few who know some truth. It's about equalizing the power to harm and the power to defend against harm. The reason to preserve and re-publish something that was once known, is so that no single party gets to use it, or use it's absense, against everyone else. All deleting something does is reduce the number of people with the power to use it. It does not make it actually go away. It just makes it go away from you, while someone else who you may not like still has it. While there are reasons to forget history, the reasons for preserving it far far far outweigh the reasons for forgetting it. And there is NO valid reason to allow editing history. Selective forgetting allows for substitution, revision, balkanization, manipulation, and at the very least, doubt.
        • lilyball 8y ago
          > there is no value in letting just some people still know the truth while everyone else is subject to manipulation by a few who know some truth. Just because my SSN got leaked to a few people doesn't mean it needs to be leaked to the world. Most people aren't going to take advantage of my SSN, so having it leaked to a few arbitrary people is a relatively minor risk. And if it does get abused, there's a very small pool of suspects. Having my SSN get publicly broadcast to the world pretty much guarantees I'll be plagued by identity theft forever and gives me no suspects when it happens. Same goes for plenty of other private information. Just because it's leaked to some people doesn't remotely justify giving it to the whole world. > The reason to preserve and re-publish something that was once known, is so that no single party gets to use it, or use it's absense, against everyone else. We're not talking about secret cheat codes that give the owner power over everyone else. We're talking about private information. If a "single party" has my private information, they have power over me, but that doesn't give them power over anyone else. In this scenario your argument seems to be "if one person has power over me, that's unfair to everyone else who doesn't, so they should be given the same power over me as well", which is of course complete nonsense.
    • stordoff 8y ago
      You can stop ringing it.