> Yes, a person owning their data should mean they can change it! Well being able to change data is of course needed; so that goes without saying (I should hop

> Yes, a person owning their data should mean they can change it! Well being able to change data is of course needed; so that goes without saying (I should hope). However what I mean by immutability is rather that I think the web should allow me to link to a piece of content, and ensure that what I link cannot be changed from underneath me if I choose not to. I feel like I'm describing features and you're describing implementation. To me, immutability is a feature. I'm not at all referring to blockchain or any of that junk - merely that I want to be able to link (in the web sense, url/etc) to content - to discuss it with other people and etc, and have that content not change. Optionally of course I should be able to link to mutable content. However we have mutability down. The feature add I'm talking about, is immutability. > It is trivial to build immutability on mutability, this is what MD5/SHA checksums do all the time on things like downloads. But if your base system is immutability, it is hard to do anything else well. Sure, but that's an implementation detail. I was not (or did not intent to, at least) say that the "base implementation" must be immutable. All I care about is that immutability is a first class citizen, and linking immutable content is possible. To build user features around immutability, where as nothing like that exists in the current "web".