3 ms·

One major difference between reading on the web though is the mutability of the support. Content can change without notice, or simply disappear (though this has

One major difference between reading on the web though is the mutability of the support. Content can change without notice, or simply disappear (though this has parallels with physical books). I find the point of durability interesting, on how codices protected the paper better than scrolls, and had the side-effect of surviving longer and in harsher conditions. I believe the same cannot be said for digital supports: what are the chances that an EPUB file be readable (assuming file integrity and language liveliness) in the next couple of centuries ? Even if "digital monks" copy the contents of those books from one format to the next to ensure readability, at one point practicality of a paper printed version for long-term storage will prevail.

hrktb 7y ago
This is an interesting argument as we are in completely unknown territory. As is it now we have some of the oldest scripts still readable because of pure luck (they were trapped in specific materials that preserved them, stayed in unopened cave etc.), extremely high effort (actively kept in pristine condition, backed up, repaired as needed) or wide appeal (e.g. religious books, reference books) Basically we don't have much of the random papers circulating in markets and left lying around when their appeal was pretty small. I think the same process will still happen with digital data, there will be a very low chance to find back the integrality of random users facebook posts, or the verge's amazon echo reviews in 4 centuries. But the work of the 'digital monks' will still be a lot easier, and I'd expect the bar to preserve any specific content to be a lot lower than what we had in the past. Say, people's cooking recipes might survive a few centuries more, and possibly at a massive scale if a few dozens of people take the time to make that happen, where in the past this would just be unrealistic.
- franky47 7y ago
  > I'd expect the bar to preserve any specific content to be a lot lower than what we had in the past. At the moment, I agree. However, as older civilizations rose and fell, their knowledge lived on in physical support, directly accessible by anyone who was taught how to read the language, therefore the assumption was that "as long as the language lives on, books are a good archiving support". When our modern digital civilization falls [1], I'm not sure most of it would be transmittable through long-term electronic archiving supports that may be easily readable (as easily as a written book at least) by future civilizations, because not only the language has to live on, but the technology needed to access the content also has to function. I also agree that some contents will always be more relevant to "backup". As for everything that happened on Facebook (same can be said for most social platforms), it is likely to entirely disappear with the company. One could even see it as a parallel civilization, that has no means of self-preservation other than that of their ruling entity's business interest. [1] Jonathan Blow - Preventing the collapse of civilization - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW-SOdj4Kkk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW-SOdj4Kkk

hrktb 7y ago

This is an interesting argument as we are in completely unknown territory. As is it now we have some of the oldest scripts still readable because of pure luck (they were trapped in specific materials that preserved them, stayed in unopened cave etc.), extremely high effort (actively kept in pristine condition, backed up, repaired as needed) or wide appeal (e.g. religious books, reference books) Basically we don't have much of the random papers circulating in markets and left lying around when their appeal was pretty small. I think the same process will still happen with digital data, there will be a very low chance to find back the integrality of random users facebook posts, or the verge's amazon echo reviews in 4 centuries. But the work of the 'digital monks' will still be a lot easier, and I'd expect the bar to preserve any specific content to be a lot lower than what we had in the past. Say, people's cooking recipes might survive a few centuries more, and possibly at a massive scale if a few dozens of people take the time to make that happen, where in the past this would just be unrealistic.

franky47 7y ago
> I'd expect the bar to preserve any specific content to be a lot lower than what we had in the past. At the moment, I agree. However, as older civilizations rose and fell, their knowledge lived on in physical support, directly accessible by anyone who was taught how to read the language, therefore the assumption was that "as long as the language lives on, books are a good archiving support". When our modern digital civilization falls [1], I'm not sure most of it would be transmittable through long-term electronic archiving supports that may be easily readable (as easily as a written book at least) by future civilizations, because not only the language has to live on, but the technology needed to access the content also has to function. I also agree that some contents will always be more relevant to "backup". As for everything that happened on Facebook (same can be said for most social platforms), it is likely to entirely disappear with the company. One could even see it as a parallel civilization, that has no means of self-preservation other than that of their ruling entity's business interest. [1] Jonathan Blow - Preventing the collapse of civilization - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW-SOdj4Kkk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW-SOdj4Kkk