3 ms·

Well, most of it is just trash that won’t make anyone less rich if lost. It’s like putting a script of Antigone and a sex advertising graffiti in Pompeii on the

by eecc 5y ago

Well, most of it is just trash that won’t make anyone less rich if lost. It’s like putting a script of Antigone and a sex advertising graffiti in Pompeii on the same level.

romwell 5y ago
Sex-advertising graffiti in Pompeii are still valuable cultural artifacts that let us know what life in Pompeii was like. There are two orthogonal reasons for culture to be preserved: * there are things that will be valuable to future generations to build upon and enrich them * someone in the future would ask, what was life like in 2020, and without the "trash" culture, the answer will be very much off the mark Trash or not trash, this is what we have. This is why archive.org is important, this is why preserving Usenet archives is important, and why I'm happy that many geocities websites were archived before Yahoo axed them.
- eecc 5y ago
  Indeed, but there’s this concept called “forgetfulness”. We can’t afford to hoard everything, eventually things get lost in time and it’s ok. We will die and so will our own footprints disappear. Something - perhaps the most relevant and actively preserved, or frequent and therefore merely because of statistics - will survive. But we need to entertain the option of letting go
  - romwell 5y ago
    Sure, we don't need to preserve every single piece of scrap in our collective memory. But archiving doesn't do that either. There are many more silent films archived than either of us have watched, for example. Then sure, not everything needs to be archived. I believe there's a reasonable, subjective threshold of what you'd need to keep to get an idea of a person living in the time period. Letting go and keeping are not incompatible ideas.
newswasboring 5y ago
This is a bit gatekeep-y. Who defines what is trash and not significant. There are 7 billion people on earth, do you think the same things need to be equally relevant to everyone? Something you might find trash can have enormous impact on someone else's life. One of my favorite entertainment products is pro wrestling, many, many people consider it trash. Should it be thrown out?
- eecc 5y ago
  No, actively scrubbed in the name of some principle I guess not. Please do enjoy your wrestling but don’t cry foul if It doesn’t survive scrutiny and interest over the multitudes of humanity and is lost in time
  - newswasboring 5y ago
    That just feels like you want to only preserve your definition again. That is by definition gate keeping.
    - eecc 5y ago
      Look, I’m not keeping any gate closed. It’s none of my business. If you want to invest in a time capsule for your favorite fancy go ahead. But please don’t go “ad hominem”-y when implying anyone is violating or oppressing you if they don’t happen to have your same priorities.

by eecc 5y ago

Well, most of it is just trash that won’t make anyone less rich if lost. It’s like putting a script of Antigone and a sex advertising graffiti in Pompeii on the same level.

romwell 5y ago

Sex-advertising graffiti in Pompeii are still valuable cultural artifacts that let us know what life in Pompeii was like. There are two orthogonal reasons for culture to be preserved: * there are things that will be valuable to future generations to build upon and enrich them * someone in the future would ask, what was life like in 2020, and without the "trash" culture, the answer will be very much off the mark Trash or not trash, this is what we have. This is why archive.org is important, this is why preserving Usenet archives is important, and why I'm happy that many geocities websites were archived before Yahoo axed them.

eecc 5y ago
Indeed, but there’s this concept called “forgetfulness”. We can’t afford to hoard everything, eventually things get lost in time and it’s ok. We will die and so will our own footprints disappear. Something - perhaps the most relevant and actively preserved, or frequent and therefore merely because of statistics - will survive. But we need to entertain the option of letting go
- romwell 5y ago
  Sure, we don't need to preserve every single piece of scrap in our collective memory. But archiving doesn't do that either. There are many more silent films archived than either of us have watched, for example. Then sure, not everything needs to be archived. I believe there's a reasonable, subjective threshold of what you'd need to keep to get an idea of a person living in the time period. Letting go and keeping are not incompatible ideas.

newswasboring 5y ago

This is a bit gatekeep-y. Who defines what is trash and not significant. There are 7 billion people on earth, do you think the same things need to be equally relevant to everyone? Something you might find trash can have enormous impact on someone else's life. One of my favorite entertainment products is pro wrestling, many, many people consider it trash. Should it be thrown out?

eecc 5y ago
No, actively scrubbed in the name of some principle I guess not. Please do enjoy your wrestling but don’t cry foul if It doesn’t survive scrutiny and interest over the multitudes of humanity and is lost in time
- newswasboring 5y ago
  That just feels like you want to only preserve your definition again. That is by definition gate keeping.
  - eecc 5y ago
    Look, I’m not keeping any gate closed. It’s none of my business. If you want to invest in a time capsule for your favorite fancy go ahead. But please don’t go “ad hominem”-y when implying anyone is violating or oppressing you if they don’t happen to have your same priorities.