3 ms·

I don't think it's about weaponization, so much as just regular privacy. Waybackmachine for corporate sites, NGOs, public information - I get. But G+ is essen

I don't think it's about weaponization, so much as just regular privacy. Waybackmachine for corporate sites, NGOs, public information - I get. But G+ is essentially a social network. I don't think people really would chose to have that information arbitrarily saved. I don't want to have to tell some stranger on the other side of the planet to 'stop saving stuff about me'. I think the parent comment is apt, and I don't think we need to be saving the information on social networks unless there's something specifically (not casually) public about it.

ghaff 8y ago
They're specifically private insofar as they were posted publicly. Perhaps some people think that what they post is somehow private but people share email/posts/etc. all the time.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  There's a difference between some individual who publishes something effectively for their extended group of friends, whereupon there happens to be a 'default public' setting ... and for example a wikipedia entry or new organization/periodical posting something for public consumption. It's a 'social network'.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    And I would argue it's very naive to assume that it won't leak further. Of course that's nothing new.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      I totally agree it's naive for people to do this stuff! Fully. But that people shouldn't be taking advantage of people's naivte, especially for some kind of ostensible 'public good' like 'internet history archive'. Zero surprises if Visa, FB, the NSA and 'some insurance company' were doing this, for their own selfish reasons, being able to claim 'hey, it's public, so it's legal' type thing ... but I'm not sure that the local librarian should be doing this. I think sometimes good intentions mean some different things to different people. We HN-er types tend to live a little outside of 'normal' as I'm often reminded every time I visit my parents/siblings homes and am reminded of how normal folks live.

ghaff 8y ago

They're specifically private insofar as they were posted publicly. Perhaps some people think that what they post is somehow private but people share email/posts/etc. all the time.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
There's a difference between some individual who publishes something effectively for their extended group of friends, whereupon there happens to be a 'default public' setting ... and for example a wikipedia entry or new organization/periodical posting something for public consumption. It's a 'social network'.
- ghaff 8y ago
  And I would argue it's very naive to assume that it won't leak further. Of course that's nothing new.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    I totally agree it's naive for people to do this stuff! Fully. But that people shouldn't be taking advantage of people's naivte, especially for some kind of ostensible 'public good' like 'internet history archive'. Zero surprises if Visa, FB, the NSA and 'some insurance company' were doing this, for their own selfish reasons, being able to claim 'hey, it's public, so it's legal' type thing ... but I'm not sure that the local librarian should be doing this. I think sometimes good intentions mean some different things to different people. We HN-er types tend to live a little outside of 'normal' as I'm often reminded every time I visit my parents/siblings homes and am reminded of how normal folks live.