4 ms·
Are they? I mean, just recently there was a post on HN asking whether the G+ backups were necessary in the sense of creating a permanent record of everything pe
by tcd 8y ago
Are they? I mean, just recently there was a post on HN asking whether the G+ backups were necessary in the sense of creating a permanent record of everything people submit online.
Make no mistake, certain content is worth archiving, but imagine if we'd been archiving everything since our species first days.
Now we have the capability, we're obsessed that we must archive everything; how useful are the older IMDB comments really?
I dread to think how much storage is 'wasted' in these archives storing useless content, and how useful it really is to people in reality.
There are archives of every reddit comment ever made, but there are many hundreds of thousands of spam or useless comments....
I don't think the Internet needs an immutable record of every piece of content or every hyper link to preserved for the rest of time, we need to discern what's really important and throw away the rest, if not to make it easier to parse (but, since that's difficult, we just grab it all which whilst great presents its own issues in terms of required resources).
- shawnz 8y agoI think it would have been immensely valuable for anthropological reasons to see the mundane details of the lives of people who lived thousands of years ago. If we just keep only the most important works it doesn't really give a clear picture of how people actually lived at that time. That said, I definitely agree that there will be diminishing returns if you keep everything.
- opportune 8y agoAt the very least it will be useful to future history/sociology phd students who will be able to pick any moderately active forum or subcommunity from the past and write a dissertation on its idiosyncracies
- reaperducer 8y agoimagine if we'd been archiving everything since our species first days. Then there would be no "Mysteries of...!" shows on basic cable.