3 ms·

Then, weirdly: > "The @internetarchive did not ask to take these off of Flickr's site. We do not have any power of them-- it is up to them." —https://twitter.co

Then, weirdly: > "The @internetarchive did not ask to take these off of Flickr's site. We do not have any power of them-- it is up to them." —https://twitter.com/brewster_kahle/status/151100996579578675 https://twitter.com/brewster_kahle/status/151100996579578675... IA and Flickrs pent weeks talking about this (according to flickr...), but didn't come to enough understanding that they both agree on what happened? I'm also curious what happened with the title of this HN post. It currently says "The Internet Archive Book Images has deleted their Flickr account", but apparently originally said something else? Shouldn't the HN post title match the tweet linked, regardless? Under what HN policy do mods change the title to not match what it's linking to?

webmaven 5y ago
Now that tweet has been deleted.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  I think I just accidentally corrupted it in my post. let's try again: https://twitter.com/brewster_kahle/status/1511009965795786754 https://twitter.com/brewster_kahle/status/151100996579578675...
johtso 5y ago
The account is being reinstated! https://twitter.com/DonMacAskill/status/1511033739706478594 https://twitter.com/DonMacAskill/status/1511033739706478594 "Recommending to IA that they delete it was a mistake. Our problem was that the 5M book images were drowning out the rest of the Commons members. So, we are restoring the account, moving it out of the Commons, and placing the book images under CC0, with IA’s permission and support"