6 ms·

Dunno. History matters and historians would probably strongly disagree. Some things are more important than you think. Too much gets lost too easily.

coldtea 6y ago
>Dunno. History matters and historians would probably strongly disagree. People don't live or structure their lives to satisfy historians...
- andybak 6y ago
  No. I'm struggling to think of a reply better than "Obviously, not." I think your statement was already implicit in what I was saying. We should move on to the next bit where I say "But..." and you counter it.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  People also don't live or structure their lives to satisfy those who had a written conversation and want the copies burned.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Well, they should. Permanent record of every small transgression or juvenile excess or stupidity is inhumane...
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      What's inhumane is making every small transgression into some stigma that should follow a person around their whole life. I don't think we fix that by erasing all traces of the transgression, which in many cases may be practically impossible.
      - oooooooooooow 6y ago
        It's not obvious to me whether changing the view on transgression and stigma is practically possible. In my experience it's strongly tied to personal experience: if I committed a transgression in my past I'm going to be more understanding towards others doing the same (still depending on the nature of the transgression and my rationalization of it). It's also worth nothing that what constitutes a transgression changes with the times, and often the public seem to forget/ignore this fact and retroactively apply stigma and resentment.
centimeter 6y ago
Even if this were true, it would be better if the archives were not available for some decades after the original posting. I’m OK with my content being analyzed by historians, but the definition of “historian” presumes some professional detachment that is not available short years after the post was made.
- andybak 6y ago
  I think even leaving aside historians - the idea of making everything posting transient by default would have robbed us of a lot of stored knowledge. I'm feeling quite bitter about the rise of Slack and Discord over mailing lists and Usenet. The ease in which one can find clues and solutions to decades old technical questions relies on everything being stored. And more than just technical issues - I'm no historian but I've wasted endless hours following fascinating discussions from the past that suddenly become relevent because of recent events or unforeseen connections. I love how much is preserved by accident. It makes me slightly sad to think that it might be otherwise and that others would wish it otherwise.
  - spockz 6y ago
    And yet I used to regularly find answers on a Usenet or Google groups mirror with Google. Even sometimes in public irc logs. I have yet to find the answer in a public slack or discord log.
- musicale 6y ago
  > but the definition of “historian” presumes some professional detachment The idea of everything you've ever posted becoming part of a giant "digital permanent record" used by data brokers, advertisers, credit bureaus, trolls, nosy people, etc. is somewhat unappealing.
  - vinger 6y ago
    Yet what was always predicted. Followed by homes taking families hostage and we are almost there.
- 6y ago
cmroanirgo 6y ago
And yet Eric Schmidt says (2010)* we should change our name... Because everything is always kept https://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-s_n_684031?ri18n=true https://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/google-ceo-eric-schmid... * It's ironic I'm referring to a 10yr old piece to refer to the danger of continuous archives.
- simonblack 6y ago
  Not really, that information gradually gets bit-rot and evaporates away to nothingness as website after website gets old and vanishes. In the early days of the Internet, I often used to Google/AltaVista/Jeeves my own name. There used to be quite a few hits. Over the years, those old hits have just faded away.
  - Frenziefrenz 6y ago
    That doesn't necessarily mean they disappeared, although chances are probably better that they did than didn't. Google has increasingly started incorporating recency in how it ranks search results, so if it's more than a few years old it'll fade away from Google results regardless if it's still around or not.
    - simonblack 6y ago
      if it's more than a few years old it'll fade away from Google results regardless if it's still around or not. If you can't find it, it's effectively the same as if it doesn't exist.
- quercusa 6y ago
  In 2001, it was Scott McNealy : https://nerocam.com/DrFun/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200108/df20010808.jpg https://nerocam.com/DrFun/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200108/df20010808.jp... If you are not familiar with Dr. Fun: Don Knuth Finally Sells Out https://nerocam.com/DrFun/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200002/df20000210.jpg https://nerocam.com/DrFun/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200002/df20000210.jp...
hvocode 6y ago
Not everything is deserving of being treated as historical artifacts worthy of retention. A friend has lamented that when he was in college in the late 80s, he used USENET as a way to connect with people and work through some pretty heavy emotional challenges. Retaining his personal struggles is hardly "history" - if anything, the historical value of retaining the struggles of one inconsequential person is far lower than the direct impact a google search has on his life today. So as you said, some things aren't as important as you think - in his case, privacy and respect are a bit more important than a historical record of a teenager seeking people to talk to. Every minute detail of history isn't as important as you think.
- vinger 6y ago
  To a sociologist connect with people and work through some pretty heavy emotional challenges is a goodmine and insight into history.
  - compiler-guy 6y ago
    Not sure why the sociologist’s desires should take precedence over the original posters’.
    - vinger 6y ago
      When pompeii was discovered we saw into homes 1,000 years ago. Without any regard to privancy for those covered in rock we broadcast their lives around the globe. I don't think we give a lot of weight to what the original publishing intent was for anything published 100, 200 years ago, why would the change in the future?
      - endominus 6y ago
        Hence the old joke, "At what point does graverobbing become archaeology?"
        benibela 6y ago
adolph 6y ago
Before it becomes history: Phase 1: hall monitor trolls in coordination with HR use it to keep people in line Phase 2: the archive is rediscovered as truth about what the world used to be like and suppressed Phase 3: there is no archive and never was Phase 4: the archive is rediscovered, hidden and the esoteric knowledge used to start a cult Phase 5: the cult eventually prevails in society, becomes a religion and suppresses inconvenient parts of the archive Phase 6: well history repeats itself so why go on?

coldtea 6y ago

>Dunno. History matters and historians would probably strongly disagree. People don't live or structure their lives to satisfy historians...

andybak 6y ago
No. I'm struggling to think of a reply better than "Obviously, not." I think your statement was already implicit in what I was saying. We should move on to the next bit where I say "But..." and you counter it.
ineedasername 6y ago
People also don't live or structure their lives to satisfy those who had a written conversation and want the copies burned.
- coldtea 6y ago
  Well, they should. Permanent record of every small transgression or juvenile excess or stupidity is inhumane...
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    What's inhumane is making every small transgression into some stigma that should follow a person around their whole life. I don't think we fix that by erasing all traces of the transgression, which in many cases may be practically impossible.
    - oooooooooooow 6y ago
      It's not obvious to me whether changing the view on transgression and stigma is practically possible. In my experience it's strongly tied to personal experience: if I committed a transgression in my past I'm going to be more understanding towards others doing the same (still depending on the nature of the transgression and my rationalization of it). It's also worth nothing that what constitutes a transgression changes with the times, and often the public seem to forget/ignore this fact and retroactively apply stigma and resentment.

centimeter 6y ago

Even if this were true, it would be better if the archives were not available for some decades after the original posting. I’m OK with my content being analyzed by historians, but the definition of “historian” presumes some professional detachment that is not available short years after the post was made.

andybak 6y ago
I think even leaving aside historians - the idea of making everything posting transient by default would have robbed us of a lot of stored knowledge. I'm feeling quite bitter about the rise of Slack and Discord over mailing lists and Usenet. The ease in which one can find clues and solutions to decades old technical questions relies on everything being stored. And more than just technical issues - I'm no historian but I've wasted endless hours following fascinating discussions from the past that suddenly become relevent because of recent events or unforeseen connections. I love how much is preserved by accident. It makes me slightly sad to think that it might be otherwise and that others would wish it otherwise.
- spockz 6y ago
  And yet I used to regularly find answers on a Usenet or Google groups mirror with Google. Even sometimes in public irc logs. I have yet to find the answer in a public slack or discord log.
musicale 6y ago
> but the definition of “historian” presumes some professional detachment The idea of everything you've ever posted becoming part of a giant "digital permanent record" used by data brokers, advertisers, credit bureaus, trolls, nosy people, etc. is somewhat unappealing.
- vinger 6y ago
  Yet what was always predicted. Followed by homes taking families hostage and we are almost there.
6y ago

cmroanirgo 6y ago

And yet Eric Schmidt says (2010)* we should change our name... Because everything is always kept https://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-s_n_684031?ri18n=true https://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/google-ceo-eric-schmid... * It's ironic I'm referring to a 10yr old piece to refer to the danger of continuous archives.

simonblack 6y ago
Not really, that information gradually gets bit-rot and evaporates away to nothingness as website after website gets old and vanishes. In the early days of the Internet, I often used to Google/AltaVista/Jeeves my own name. There used to be quite a few hits. Over the years, those old hits have just faded away.
- Frenziefrenz 6y ago
  That doesn't necessarily mean they disappeared, although chances are probably better that they did than didn't. Google has increasingly started incorporating recency in how it ranks search results, so if it's more than a few years old it'll fade away from Google results regardless if it's still around or not.
  - simonblack 6y ago
    if it's more than a few years old it'll fade away from Google results regardless if it's still around or not. If you can't find it, it's effectively the same as if it doesn't exist.
quercusa 6y ago
In 2001, it was Scott McNealy : https://nerocam.com/DrFun/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200108/df20010808.jpg https://nerocam.com/DrFun/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200108/df20010808.jp... If you are not familiar with Dr. Fun: Don Knuth Finally Sells Out https://nerocam.com/DrFun/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200002/df20000210.jpg https://nerocam.com/DrFun/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200002/df20000210.jp...

hvocode 6y ago

Not everything is deserving of being treated as historical artifacts worthy of retention. A friend has lamented that when he was in college in the late 80s, he used USENET as a way to connect with people and work through some pretty heavy emotional challenges. Retaining his personal struggles is hardly "history" - if anything, the historical value of retaining the struggles of one inconsequential person is far lower than the direct impact a google search has on his life today. So as you said, some things aren't as important as you think - in his case, privacy and respect are a bit more important than a historical record of a teenager seeking people to talk to. Every minute detail of history isn't as important as you think.

vinger 6y ago
To a sociologist connect with people and work through some pretty heavy emotional challenges is a goodmine and insight into history.
- compiler-guy 6y ago
  Not sure why the sociologist’s desires should take precedence over the original posters’.
  - vinger 6y ago
    When pompeii was discovered we saw into homes 1,000 years ago. Without any regard to privancy for those covered in rock we broadcast their lives around the globe. I don't think we give a lot of weight to what the original publishing intent was for anything published 100, 200 years ago, why would the change in the future?
    - endominus 6y ago
      Hence the old joke, "At what point does graverobbing become archaeology?"
      - benibela 6y ago

adolph 6y ago

Before it becomes history: Phase 1: hall monitor trolls in coordination with HR use it to keep people in line Phase 2: the archive is rediscovered as truth about what the world used to be like and suppressed Phase 3: there is no archive and never was Phase 4: the archive is rediscovered, hidden and the esoteric knowledge used to start a cult Phase 5: the cult eventually prevails in society, becomes a religion and suppresses inconvenient parts of the archive Phase 6: well history repeats itself so why go on?