4 ms·

I disagree with the core tenet of the article. Does everything really have to live forever? Most blogs are probably not worth preserving, just like most speeche

I disagree with the core tenet of the article. Does everything really have to live forever? Most blogs are probably not worth preserving, just like most speeches in history are not worth preserving. Most books are never reprinted. Time is a great filter. Yes important stuff gets lost but not each thought or word is worth preserving and not every moment in life needs to be captured and kept for posterity. I would prefer if more SO answers, more old tweets, more outdated tech blogs, more old unflattering photographs, ... disappear in the void. The death of geocities meant some valuable stuff was lost, but it also meant that much much more crap was lost. The world does not gain from keeping every scrap, rather the filter of 'did someone care enough to preserve this' adds value as the signal to noise ratio improves over time.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
Ancient Roman graffiti is seen as being valuable enough that significant time and resource has been spent on studying it. The anthropological value of it seems obvious to me. Perhaps low effort thought-leadership or social media drivel has little contemporary value, but it could be a fantastic historical resource. The selection bias of history that was chosen to be preserved (and the people who were doing the choosing) puts a rather firm set of constraints on our ability to understand the past.
- estaseuropano 6y ago
  Absolutely agree. At the same time, this roman graffiti is valuable because there's not that much of it and not much other records of the time. We have more from Rome than most other times and places in history, but overall no much. There are probably more words of Linkedin 'thought leaders' publisher per hour than all the the text that has reached us from Rome. I would still argue that we live in a time where many things are needlessly preserved (not to mention the privacy implications...).

AmericanChopper 6y ago

Ancient Roman graffiti is seen as being valuable enough that significant time and resource has been spent on studying it. The anthropological value of it seems obvious to me. Perhaps low effort thought-leadership or social media drivel has little contemporary value, but it could be a fantastic historical resource. The selection bias of history that was chosen to be preserved (and the people who were doing the choosing) puts a rather firm set of constraints on our ability to understand the past.

estaseuropano 6y ago
Absolutely agree. At the same time, this roman graffiti is valuable because there's not that much of it and not much other records of the time. We have more from Rome than most other times and places in history, but overall no much. There are probably more words of Linkedin 'thought leaders' publisher per hour than all the the text that has reached us from Rome. I would still argue that we live in a time where many things are needlessly preserved (not to mention the privacy implications...).