5 ms·

They committed identity suicide. For all intents and purposes _why is dead, regardless of the state of the human who used to operate that identity.

wpietri 5y ago
I'm uncomfortable with this sort of confounding a character with the person behind it. If an author says they're not writing any more books about X, that doesn't mean that suicide (or murder) has taken place. It just means we won't see anything more from that author using that character unless they change their mind. My concern is for the person behind it. I hope they're well and are doing something they find more satisfying and less stressful!
- Volundr 5y ago
  I'm not sure how I feel about the suicide metaphor, but what _why did what more than just saying he's not going to write more books about X. He actively worked to tear down the character and creations he built, rather than simply opting not to make more. He put enough effort into it that I'm not sure how I feel about this stuff still being hosted, I mean I know it's legal and all, but given his actions I'm not at all sure it aligns with his wishes. It really does feel like he tried to kill "something".
  - andybak 5y ago
    Great work should be preserved even if the author wants it gone. I feel quite strongly about this.
    - riffic 5y ago
      this isn't your intellectual property to preserve.
      - vidarh 5y ago
        IP rights are granted by society to encourage creation to enrich the commons in the first place. If you seek to prevent published work from eventually entering the commons you're not holding up your end of the bargain.
      - andybak 5y ago
        I agree and I would propose that the concept of intellectual "property" is the thing that needs to be modified here.
      - spacechild1 5y ago
        Franz Kafka asked his friend Max Brod in a written testament to destroy his entire work after his death. Max Brod didn't obey. Do you think he was wrong?
        copperx 5y ago
        Yes.
        kibwen 5y ago
        Terry Pratchett asked Neil Gaiman to destroy his unpublished works after his death. Gaiman obliged. Do you think he was wrong? I'm no fan of IP, and we all know it's a boondoggle to take something that's public and try to erase every last instance of it (as _why seemed to want to do), but the prerogative that people do have is whether or not to publish something in the first place. Privacy is a human right, and that includes the freedom not to have your private thoughts published against your will.
        webmaven 5y ago
        > Terry Pratchett asked Neil Gaiman to destroy his unpublished works after his death. Gaiman obliged. Do you think he was wrong? The Kafka and Pratchet requests aren't equivalent. In general I'd say that the choices by the executors in both cases were justifiable.
        blowski 5y ago
    - jedimastert 5y ago
      What about the right to be forgotten?
      - naniwaduni 5y ago
        It's never been particularly practicable, nor frankly even a good idea to design around implementing.
      - toyg 5y ago
        That's a modern pseudo-juridical invention that, tbh, I disagree with. The baseline should be that actions have consequences, and then you exclude certain specific areas (underage, exploited, etc).
        Veen 5y ago
        That's fine if the consequences are reasonable, but they are often not. The mob doesn't do proportionate responses. Those who fear the mob cannot be relied on to stand against it. The "right to be forgotten" aims to strike a balance between justified consequences and the modern-day Scarlet letter the web attaches to any percieved wrong-doer.
        toyg 5y ago
        And it really misses the target. In practice, the main users of that "right" are seriously-bad guys - from pedophiles to serial fraudsters. It really should become a "right to be forgiven", with penalties for discrimination like we have for race and religion. This would also help with things like registers of convicted felons, which in practice are more disproportionately harmful than a few items in google cache.
        blowski 5y ago
        > the main users of that "right" are seriously-bad guys Source? I recently read that it’s used a lot by young people wanting to remove embarrassing they or others added in their younger days. I’ve no idea to what extent either of you is right.
  - pailey 5y ago
    I like to think he addressed this when he reappeared a few years later: "Now I want to make it perfectly clear that these papers and all my other works in life belong to the general public. In fact, I also would like to turn myself over to all of you as well. This was actually done several years ago, but in an embarrassingly disorganized manner." - https://github.com/steveklabnik/CLOSURE/blob/master/PDF/DISCLAIMER.pdf https://github.com/steveklabnik/CLOSURE/blob/master/PDF/DISC...

wpietri 5y ago

I'm uncomfortable with this sort of confounding a character with the person behind it. If an author says they're not writing any more books about X, that doesn't mean that suicide (or murder) has taken place. It just means we won't see anything more from that author using that character unless they change their mind. My concern is for the person behind it. I hope they're well and are doing something they find more satisfying and less stressful!

Volundr 5y ago
I'm not sure how I feel about the suicide metaphor, but what _why did what more than just saying he's not going to write more books about X. He actively worked to tear down the character and creations he built, rather than simply opting not to make more. He put enough effort into it that I'm not sure how I feel about this stuff still being hosted, I mean I know it's legal and all, but given his actions I'm not at all sure it aligns with his wishes. It really does feel like he tried to kill "something".
- andybak 5y ago
  Great work should be preserved even if the author wants it gone. I feel quite strongly about this.
  - riffic 5y ago
    this isn't your intellectual property to preserve.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      IP rights are granted by society to encourage creation to enrich the commons in the first place. If you seek to prevent published work from eventually entering the commons you're not holding up your end of the bargain.
    - andybak 5y ago
      I agree and I would propose that the concept of intellectual "property" is the thing that needs to be modified here.
    - spacechild1 5y ago
      Franz Kafka asked his friend Max Brod in a written testament to destroy his entire work after his death. Max Brod didn't obey. Do you think he was wrong?
      - copperx 5y ago
        Yes.
      - kibwen 5y ago
        Terry Pratchett asked Neil Gaiman to destroy his unpublished works after his death. Gaiman obliged. Do you think he was wrong? I'm no fan of IP, and we all know it's a boondoggle to take something that's public and try to erase every last instance of it (as _why seemed to want to do), but the prerogative that people do have is whether or not to publish something in the first place. Privacy is a human right, and that includes the freedom not to have your private thoughts published against your will.
        webmaven 5y ago
        > Terry Pratchett asked Neil Gaiman to destroy his unpublished works after his death. Gaiman obliged. Do you think he was wrong? The Kafka and Pratchet requests aren't equivalent. In general I'd say that the choices by the executors in both cases were justifiable.
        blowski 5y ago
  - jedimastert 5y ago
    What about the right to be forgotten?
    - naniwaduni 5y ago
      It's never been particularly practicable, nor frankly even a good idea to design around implementing.
    - toyg 5y ago
      That's a modern pseudo-juridical invention that, tbh, I disagree with. The baseline should be that actions have consequences, and then you exclude certain specific areas (underage, exploited, etc).
      - Veen 5y ago
        That's fine if the consequences are reasonable, but they are often not. The mob doesn't do proportionate responses. Those who fear the mob cannot be relied on to stand against it. The "right to be forgotten" aims to strike a balance between justified consequences and the modern-day Scarlet letter the web attaches to any percieved wrong-doer.
        toyg 5y ago
        And it really misses the target. In practice, the main users of that "right" are seriously-bad guys - from pedophiles to serial fraudsters. It really should become a "right to be forgiven", with penalties for discrimination like we have for race and religion. This would also help with things like registers of convicted felons, which in practice are more disproportionately harmful than a few items in google cache.
        blowski 5y ago
        > the main users of that "right" are seriously-bad guys Source? I recently read that it’s used a lot by young people wanting to remove embarrassing they or others added in their younger days. I’ve no idea to what extent either of you is right.
- pailey 5y ago
  I like to think he addressed this when he reappeared a few years later: "Now I want to make it perfectly clear that these papers and all my other works in life belong to the general public. In fact, I also would like to turn myself over to all of you as well. This was actually done several years ago, but in an embarrassingly disorganized manner." - https://github.com/steveklabnik/CLOSURE/blob/master/PDF/DISCLAIMER.pdf https://github.com/steveklabnik/CLOSURE/blob/master/PDF/DISC...