5 ms·

I'm OK with it because otherwise you are whitewashing history. For example I have recordings of the Colbert report going back to ~2005. Some of his skits relea

I'm OK with it because otherwise you are whitewashing history. For example I have recordings of the Colbert report going back to ~2005. Some of his skits released during that time would be classified as "hate speech" in 2019. Of course he, and mainstream broadcasting companies would love it if you didn't think about that. There are plenty of news clips and interviews where mainstream politicians (on Left AND Right) casually dismiss gay marriage. Powerful tech influencers like Mark Zuckerberg would love it if his IMs would disappear from the Internet. The examples go on and on.

everdrive 7y ago
I think if the last 10 years have taught us anything, it's that preserving the past does nothing to impede the changing moral zeitgeist. More records simply mean more people to attack for holding an opinion that has simply gone out of fashion. If the past decade wasn't characterized by tribalism and moral hysteria I'd be more inclined to worry about stringent preservation. At this point, I'm not really comfortable with what we're preserving.
- 1000units 7y ago
  Embrace humanity. It's not that nice, but pretending otherwise only puts you at a disadvantage for understanding and dealing with the world. Our history is an inseparable part of who we are, and it should not be forgotten.
  - dev_dull 7y ago
    Time heals all wounds, except of course wounds preserved in digital formaldehyde.
- asdff 7y ago
  It's simple. Don't say ignorant things on the internet, especially when it's tied into your real life identity. Lots of people struggle with this simple rule, because they have a compulsion to share their own myopic opinion (usually the same viral opinion as everyone else in their echo chamber) and contribute to the noise. If I was a public figure I wouldn't be on any social media platform at all, at best it wastes your already limited and highly valuable time. That being said, there's a lot of valuable information on the internet that is absolutely worth preserving. Scrape off the layer of social media and the internet is still a place of learning and problem solving. I do my own repairs on my car and the amount of times I've found a well written photo essay on a particular fix in a random honda forum, only to find the linked pictures broken, is astounding and a shame to say the least.
  - everdrive 7y ago
    Who gets to decide what's ignorant? What if I'm being sensible about what's ignorant, but I can't predict how society will feel in the future?
  - dev_dull 7y ago
    > It's simple. Don't say ignorant things on the internet, especially when it's tied into your real life identity. Kind of like saying “People who go to prison just shouldn’t commit crimes.” I don’t believe in making a case equivalence here. Being publicly prosecuted has just as much to do with “who” you are as “what” you did. I’m personally not fine with this distinction.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    James Burke, better known for his Connections series, also produced on called "The Day the Universe Changed". In it he explores how the changing understanding, and sometimes simply views of the world, humans' place in it, and what is right and wrong, change the Universe (or at least our perception of it) itself. One segment from the final episode featured on HN a few weeks ago. It references the burning of witches, in Scotland, from earlier in the same episode. Burke's point was that a set of beliefs which had once carried legal force no longer does. That route can run in reverse, and it's quite possible for beliefs, or actions, previously legally sanctioned (or at least not criminalised) to become otherwise. Prohibitions against ex post facto laws limit this in many jurisdictions, but changes in social mores are less forgiving. I've lived long enough to see some remarkable changes along several such lines, and have witnessed social and political upheavals elsewhere that are even more pronounced. There's the question of whether or not it's the fact of a durable record, or the abuse of power through that record, that is the real root of the problem. As Aesop noted, any excuse will do for a tyrant. But the persistent record does seem to pose certain problems. Particularly against a shifting set of judgements.
- yeahitslikethat 7y ago
  That's just it! We Should elect people who have a stronger moral code than it takes to be fashionable.
- chessturk 7y ago
  Though I bet I largely share your feelings, I feel like there is an interesting converse in terms of distant history looking back. Things like HP Lovecraft renouncing racism is only preserved because he wrote so many damn letters. It doesn't make the racist stuff he wrote less racist, but it allows a really clear view on how worldviews could change at the time. Perhaps the things we are storing will have historic or philosophical value. I miss real privacy though.
  - everdrive 7y ago
    I think those are all fair points. I just wonder that now we have the same volume of content (if not quality) from many, many more people. I don't believe there's a lot of time and patience for those people, but the 'landmines' of their unpopular writing is accessible despite this.
papln 7y ago
Why is it so important to blame someone now for something they haven't said publicly in over 13 years?
- return1 7y ago
  Because he said it on public broadcast. And i believe public broadcasts are the least likely to be deleted from the internet. Private stuff , or things said in a small circle of social network friends are much less important.
  - dev_dull 7y ago
    Personally I reserve the unalienable right to change my mind. What do you do when you’re wrong?
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      The scariest people are the ones who never change their mind on anything.
    - return1 7y ago
      If you do it in a very public way then other people also have a right to very publicly call you out for that. Nothing personal or binary, just typical public character assassination
rchaud 7y ago
> Some of his skits released during that time would be classified as "hate speech" in 2019. Yeah, I'm going to need some proof for that. Eddie Murphy's '80s HBO standup routines are available in full on YouTube, and some of that material is absurdly homophobic. He isn't a pariah by any means. People do see nuance and understand that values and mores change over time, and what might have been socially acceptable at one point, is no longer so.
- 781 7y ago
  Eddie Murphy is black. Like Kevin Hart is too. GLAAD and the left are very careful in calling out homophobic views of black people, and instead of calling for their resignation or "cancelation" as they would for a white person, they are instead demanding for "this to be a teachable moment" > GLAAD: Kevin Hart ‘Shouldn’t Have Stepped Down’ as Oscars Host, but Used Gig to Bring Unity https://www.indiewire.com/2018/12/glaad-kevin-hart-oscars-host-mistake-step-down-1202026298/ https://www.indiewire.com/2018/12/glaad-kevin-hart-oscars-ho...
  - rchaud 7y ago
    You'll have to provide something more concrete than "the left lets black people off easy" when your parent comment indicates that Stephen Colbert, a white man, is supposedly getting off easy as we speak.
tomatotomato37 7y ago
That's fine only if these records are used as broad research tools that help provide context to a period in history or a public figures's life story. If it's just going to be used as witchhunt fodder however than you can fuck right off with that.
jancsika 7y ago
> For example I have recordings of the Colbert report going back to ~2005. Some of his skits released during that time would be classified as "hate speech" in 2019. Sanity check for 2019: * "hate speech" should be a link * when I click it, it should accordion out into links to recordings of Colbert Report that you classified as "hate speech" queued up to the relevant skits * when I click one it should start streaming the data from all the peers who care about preserving old Colbert Report videos * Copyright law should have changed a decade ago to protect people who rebroadcasting exact copies of data that the copyright owner/licensee initially publicly broadcast (where "exact" is verified by checking hashes)
ddebernardy 7y ago
The character from the Colbert Report was a parody.

everdrive 7y ago

I think if the last 10 years have taught us anything, it's that preserving the past does nothing to impede the changing moral zeitgeist. More records simply mean more people to attack for holding an opinion that has simply gone out of fashion. If the past decade wasn't characterized by tribalism and moral hysteria I'd be more inclined to worry about stringent preservation. At this point, I'm not really comfortable with what we're preserving.

1000units 7y ago
Embrace humanity. It's not that nice, but pretending otherwise only puts you at a disadvantage for understanding and dealing with the world. Our history is an inseparable part of who we are, and it should not be forgotten.
- dev_dull 7y ago
  Time heals all wounds, except of course wounds preserved in digital formaldehyde.
asdff 7y ago
It's simple. Don't say ignorant things on the internet, especially when it's tied into your real life identity. Lots of people struggle with this simple rule, because they have a compulsion to share their own myopic opinion (usually the same viral opinion as everyone else in their echo chamber) and contribute to the noise. If I was a public figure I wouldn't be on any social media platform at all, at best it wastes your already limited and highly valuable time. That being said, there's a lot of valuable information on the internet that is absolutely worth preserving. Scrape off the layer of social media and the internet is still a place of learning and problem solving. I do my own repairs on my car and the amount of times I've found a well written photo essay on a particular fix in a random honda forum, only to find the linked pictures broken, is astounding and a shame to say the least.
- everdrive 7y ago
  Who gets to decide what's ignorant? What if I'm being sensible about what's ignorant, but I can't predict how society will feel in the future?
- dev_dull 7y ago
  > It's simple. Don't say ignorant things on the internet, especially when it's tied into your real life identity. Kind of like saying “People who go to prison just shouldn’t commit crimes.” I don’t believe in making a case equivalence here. Being publicly prosecuted has just as much to do with “who” you are as “what” you did. I’m personally not fine with this distinction.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  James Burke, better known for his Connections series, also produced on called "The Day the Universe Changed". In it he explores how the changing understanding, and sometimes simply views of the world, humans' place in it, and what is right and wrong, change the Universe (or at least our perception of it) itself. One segment from the final episode featured on HN a few weeks ago. It references the burning of witches, in Scotland, from earlier in the same episode. Burke's point was that a set of beliefs which had once carried legal force no longer does. That route can run in reverse, and it's quite possible for beliefs, or actions, previously legally sanctioned (or at least not criminalised) to become otherwise. Prohibitions against ex post facto laws limit this in many jurisdictions, but changes in social mores are less forgiving. I've lived long enough to see some remarkable changes along several such lines, and have witnessed social and political upheavals elsewhere that are even more pronounced. There's the question of whether or not it's the fact of a durable record, or the abuse of power through that record, that is the real root of the problem. As Aesop noted, any excuse will do for a tyrant. But the persistent record does seem to pose certain problems. Particularly against a shifting set of judgements.
yeahitslikethat 7y ago
That's just it! We Should elect people who have a stronger moral code than it takes to be fashionable.
chessturk 7y ago
Though I bet I largely share your feelings, I feel like there is an interesting converse in terms of distant history looking back. Things like HP Lovecraft renouncing racism is only preserved because he wrote so many damn letters. It doesn't make the racist stuff he wrote less racist, but it allows a really clear view on how worldviews could change at the time. Perhaps the things we are storing will have historic or philosophical value. I miss real privacy though.
- everdrive 7y ago
  I think those are all fair points. I just wonder that now we have the same volume of content (if not quality) from many, many more people. I don't believe there's a lot of time and patience for those people, but the 'landmines' of their unpopular writing is accessible despite this.

papln 7y ago

Why is it so important to blame someone now for something they haven't said publicly in over 13 years?

return1 7y ago
Because he said it on public broadcast. And i believe public broadcasts are the least likely to be deleted from the internet. Private stuff , or things said in a small circle of social network friends are much less important.
- dev_dull 7y ago
  Personally I reserve the unalienable right to change my mind. What do you do when you’re wrong?
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    The scariest people are the ones who never change their mind on anything.
  - return1 7y ago
    If you do it in a very public way then other people also have a right to very publicly call you out for that. Nothing personal or binary, just typical public character assassination

rchaud 7y ago

> Some of his skits released during that time would be classified as "hate speech" in 2019. Yeah, I'm going to need some proof for that. Eddie Murphy's '80s HBO standup routines are available in full on YouTube, and some of that material is absurdly homophobic. He isn't a pariah by any means. People do see nuance and understand that values and mores change over time, and what might have been socially acceptable at one point, is no longer so.

781 7y ago
Eddie Murphy is black. Like Kevin Hart is too. GLAAD and the left are very careful in calling out homophobic views of black people, and instead of calling for their resignation or "cancelation" as they would for a white person, they are instead demanding for "this to be a teachable moment" > GLAAD: Kevin Hart ‘Shouldn’t Have Stepped Down’ as Oscars Host, but Used Gig to Bring Unity https://www.indiewire.com/2018/12/glaad-kevin-hart-oscars-host-mistake-step-down-1202026298/ https://www.indiewire.com/2018/12/glaad-kevin-hart-oscars-ho...
- rchaud 7y ago
  You'll have to provide something more concrete than "the left lets black people off easy" when your parent comment indicates that Stephen Colbert, a white man, is supposedly getting off easy as we speak.

tomatotomato37 7y ago

That's fine only if these records are used as broad research tools that help provide context to a period in history or a public figures's life story. If it's just going to be used as witchhunt fodder however than you can fuck right off with that.

jancsika 7y ago

> For example I have recordings of the Colbert report going back to ~2005. Some of his skits released during that time would be classified as "hate speech" in 2019. Sanity check for 2019: * "hate speech" should be a link * when I click it, it should accordion out into links to recordings of Colbert Report that you classified as "hate speech" queued up to the relevant skits * when I click one it should start streaming the data from all the peers who care about preserving old Colbert Report videos * Copyright law should have changed a decade ago to protect people who rebroadcasting exact copies of data that the copyright owner/licensee initially publicly broadcast (where "exact" is verified by checking hashes)

ddebernardy 7y ago

The character from the Colbert Report was a parody.