4 ms·

Some don't want their old posts archived for eternity, for privacy reasons. Yahoo had a nice interface to allow everyone that was a member of any group to down

Some don't want their old posts archived for eternity, for privacy reasons. Yahoo had a nice interface to allow everyone that was a member of any group to download everything for their personal and private use, and it worked fine. Random external parties republishing other people's old posts though is not OK at all and is a massive breech of privacy, and is a violation. Because of the threat that one's opinions may be archived and forevermore propagated by random third parties, at this point in history one would have to be insane to express a genuine opinion publicly. Therefore these efforts have a chilling effect on free speech and are inimical to democracy.

pests 7y ago
If Yahoo Groups wasn't going down your posts would be forever accessible anyways. What does it matter if they are archived by first party or third party?
- bluntfang 7y ago
  Mostly because you've entered into an agreement with the first party (however dubious, that's another argument) and have consented to their terms to use their platform. There wasn't a checkbox that said "I consent to third parties storing all of my information after we decide to shutdown the platform". Consent is paramount to privacy, and archiving everything without consent is a breaking a huge privacy and trust boundary.
  - betamaxthetape 7y ago
    Going into this, we did understand that this could be a concern. We are committed to working with group moderators as we work to make what we've saved available, and will be honoring valid take-down requests for content that people that prefer the content to not be online.
    - bluntfang 7y ago
      Sorry, but you're doing consent wrong. Consent is something received before an action.
      - bnj 7y ago
        Would you mind clarifying your objection for me? Don't authors of posts assume the risk that third parties will copy and reuse the content when they publish it?
        bluntfang 7y ago
        Just because the risk is there doesn't mean we should be forced to accept it. There is currently a battle waging for our privacy.

pests 7y ago

If Yahoo Groups wasn't going down your posts would be forever accessible anyways. What does it matter if they are archived by first party or third party?

bluntfang 7y ago
Mostly because you've entered into an agreement with the first party (however dubious, that's another argument) and have consented to their terms to use their platform. There wasn't a checkbox that said "I consent to third parties storing all of my information after we decide to shutdown the platform". Consent is paramount to privacy, and archiving everything without consent is a breaking a huge privacy and trust boundary.
- betamaxthetape 7y ago
  Going into this, we did understand that this could be a concern. We are committed to working with group moderators as we work to make what we've saved available, and will be honoring valid take-down requests for content that people that prefer the content to not be online.
  - bluntfang 7y ago
    Sorry, but you're doing consent wrong. Consent is something received before an action.
    - bnj 7y ago
      Would you mind clarifying your objection for me? Don't authors of posts assume the risk that third parties will copy and reuse the content when they publish it?
      - bluntfang 7y ago
        Just because the risk is there doesn't mean we should be forced to accept it. There is currently a battle waging for our privacy.