4 ms·

There are clearly some things we, and the author, wants to persist, and yet the internet fails to do so. Trying to muddle in privacy concerns with the accumula

There are clearly some things we, and the author, wants to persist, and yet the internet fails to do so. Trying to muddle in privacy concerns with the accumulation of public knowledge undermines the whole concept of a shared society, or there being even the potential of accumulating "progress" in the first place. Also, historically speaking, people with means used to save their letters for posterity, which proved to be a very valuable resource for future academics, so the idea of, what, deleting all your proton mails and signal messages as encouraged is arguably overshooting the return to some pre-internet norm.

kodah 5y ago
> Also, historically speaking, people with means used to save their letters for posterity, which proved to be a very valuable resource for future academics Your example is an example of choice or consent. They also had the option to burn their hand written books and scrolls down periodically. Systems like IA take that choice away.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  There is no reason to do person communication with staticish websites. Don't foist the problems of social media onto the Internet Archive.
  - kodah 5y ago
    I'm not sure I understand. robots.txt was a matter of consent and was standardized well over twenty years ago. The IA willfully ignores it because they believe it interferes with their mission. This was long before social media, when static websites were more dominant than dynamic ones. Source: https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-search-engines-dont-work-well-for-web-archives/ https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-sea...
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      This is a fair philosophical quibble, but the tiny amount of harm done in in real world makes this a waste of time discussing. You made it public on the damn web, people doing what they wanted with it is fair game per the original ethos of the web. If you wanted it to be private, you should have some auth or encryption. The actual real world harm is in actually-common-used means of personal communication were network effects preclude on carrying out they business with technology appropriate to desired privacy levels. Chatting on my custom website was always niche, and therefore the network effects argument doesn't carry water. We should refrain from worrying about robots.txt minute until the elephant in the room is put to rset.
      - kodah 5y ago
        Issues are not single track. I can rightfully claim that IA is founded on unethical behavior while I can also say other things in the world are bad.
luckylion 5y ago
"You shouldn't have privacy because it undermines the concept of a shared society, and also future historians might find your life interesting." Thanks.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Rediculus Strawman

kodah 5y ago

> Also, historically speaking, people with means used to save their letters for posterity, which proved to be a very valuable resource for future academics Your example is an example of choice or consent. They also had the option to burn their hand written books and scrolls down periodically. Systems like IA take that choice away.

Ericson2314 5y ago
There is no reason to do person communication with staticish websites. Don't foist the problems of social media onto the Internet Archive.
- kodah 5y ago
  I'm not sure I understand. robots.txt was a matter of consent and was standardized well over twenty years ago. The IA willfully ignores it because they believe it interferes with their mission. This was long before social media, when static websites were more dominant than dynamic ones. Source: https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-search-engines-dont-work-well-for-web-archives/ https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-sea...
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    This is a fair philosophical quibble, but the tiny amount of harm done in in real world makes this a waste of time discussing. You made it public on the damn web, people doing what they wanted with it is fair game per the original ethos of the web. If you wanted it to be private, you should have some auth or encryption. The actual real world harm is in actually-common-used means of personal communication were network effects preclude on carrying out they business with technology appropriate to desired privacy levels. Chatting on my custom website was always niche, and therefore the network effects argument doesn't carry water. We should refrain from worrying about robots.txt minute until the elephant in the room is put to rset.
    - kodah 5y ago
      Issues are not single track. I can rightfully claim that IA is founded on unethical behavior while I can also say other things in the world are bad.

luckylion 5y ago

"You shouldn't have privacy because it undermines the concept of a shared society, and also future historians might find your life interesting." Thanks.

Ericson2314 5y ago
Rediculus Strawman