4 ms·

HEXUS stopped publishing in 2021, and the company no longer exists. The forums were kept because they don't take much work to keep online. Now, there's a lot of

HEXUS stopped publishing in 2021, and the company no longer exists. The forums were kept because they don't take much work to keep online. Now, there's a lot of work to do, like reading hundreds of pages of documents and submitting risk assessments. There's nobody to do that work now, so the idea was it could go into read only mode. The problem with that was, some users may want their data deleted if it becomes read only. Therefore, the only option is to delete it.

ninininino 2y ago
Sort of like burning down a library because you can't make it ADA compliant and install a wheelchair ramp.
- zamadatix 2y ago
  I feel as though the "sort of" is doing a lot of work there.
  - moffkalast 2y ago
    I think a more accurate comparison would be burning down a library because you can't afford the manpower to check every single book for arbitrarily defined wrongthink.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - crimsoneer 2y ago
      Except you really don't need to do that. Your risk assessment could explain it's read only, you've done some basic searches, and that's proportionate given the content and the fact you're a small website. Job done.
  - thereisnospork 2y ago
    Iirc UC Berkeley(?) did exactly that to their YouTube library of recorded lectures due to an accessibility lawsuit.
    - jameskraus 2y ago
      I still remember some of the Berkeley genetics lectures as some of the best learning materials I could find for my upper-level courses. Later I tried to refer to them and found they were all gone. I wish there was any other option vs. just taking them down.
      - __float 2y ago
        I mean, there was the obvious solution of paying the money to have it captioned, which was the original order. Berkeley instead offered this alternative solution, because they did not want to pay.
        ipaddr 2y ago
        The obvious solution was for a school to use their resources not on their students but for the general public? I guess they spent a tiny bit of money so why not 1000% times more? I don't mind giving your child some candy on Halloween but I'm not going to pay for braces. Even though he may really need them.
        notatty 2y ago
        As we all know, there is no middle ground between "paying for video captions" and "financing all money ever for the rest of time", and I think that's unfortunate.
        absolutelastone 2y ago
        I feel like there is a logical paradox here. You're using a bigger hyperbole to criticize a hyperbole. If this argument is valid then it invalidates itself.
- beeflet 2y ago
  It's more like shutting down a library because you are unwilling to censor the books
jacooper 2y ago
Why don't they just anonymize the users? Discourse does this, and it's apparently GDPR compliant.
- londons_explore 2y ago
  gdpr compliance depends a lot on who you ask, and only a court can make the final decision. Stripping all usernames out of a forum certainly makes it safer, but I don't think anyone can say there still won't be a few pissed off users who wrote things they now regret on there, and can be tracked back to individuals based on context/writing style alone.
- ChrisRR 2y ago
  The online safety act is different to GDPR

ninininino 2y ago

Sort of like burning down a library because you can't make it ADA compliant and install a wheelchair ramp.

zamadatix 2y ago
I feel as though the "sort of" is doing a lot of work there.
- moffkalast 2y ago
  I think a more accurate comparison would be burning down a library because you can't afford the manpower to check every single book for arbitrarily defined wrongthink.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - crimsoneer 2y ago
    Except you really don't need to do that. Your risk assessment could explain it's read only, you've done some basic searches, and that's proportionate given the content and the fact you're a small website. Job done.
- thereisnospork 2y ago
  Iirc UC Berkeley(?) did exactly that to their YouTube library of recorded lectures due to an accessibility lawsuit.
  - jameskraus 2y ago
    I still remember some of the Berkeley genetics lectures as some of the best learning materials I could find for my upper-level courses. Later I tried to refer to them and found they were all gone. I wish there was any other option vs. just taking them down.
    - __float 2y ago
      I mean, there was the obvious solution of paying the money to have it captioned, which was the original order. Berkeley instead offered this alternative solution, because they did not want to pay.
      - ipaddr 2y ago
        The obvious solution was for a school to use their resources not on their students but for the general public? I guess they spent a tiny bit of money so why not 1000% times more? I don't mind giving your child some candy on Halloween but I'm not going to pay for braces. Even though he may really need them.
        notatty 2y ago
        As we all know, there is no middle ground between "paying for video captions" and "financing all money ever for the rest of time", and I think that's unfortunate.
        absolutelastone 2y ago
        I feel like there is a logical paradox here. You're using a bigger hyperbole to criticize a hyperbole. If this argument is valid then it invalidates itself.
beeflet 2y ago
It's more like shutting down a library because you are unwilling to censor the books

jacooper 2y ago

Why don't they just anonymize the users? Discourse does this, and it's apparently GDPR compliant.

londons_explore 2y ago
gdpr compliance depends a lot on who you ask, and only a court can make the final decision. Stripping all usernames out of a forum certainly makes it safer, but I don't think anyone can say there still won't be a few pissed off users who wrote things they now regret on there, and can be tracked back to individuals based on context/writing style alone.
ChrisRR 2y ago
The online safety act is different to GDPR