Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

There are MANY reasons to remove sites from there.



Ok, list a few then please.


One of my local bus companies just became the only company to run buses to the local university, after the one other bus company stopped operating in the area.

They've removed themselves from archive.org so now we can't easily show that they've more than doubled the cost of the annual student bus pass over the last few years.


1. Don't want their lives 'ruined' because of socially unacceptable tweets. 2. Don't want their citizens to know that they are actively committing genocide. 3. Countless other equally legitimate reasons for removing things from the public record. 4. I'm embarrassed. 5. I could loose money. 6. My reputation will be tarnished. 7. I don't want anyone to know that I a into 'x y and z.' 8. I was young and foolish.

Some actually legitimate reasons 1. Outed themselves as a minority which is now being persecuted. (too late, the state already has the evidence) 2. Need to remove a post that is actively agitating/acting as a focus point for some group that rises to the level of physical threats.

People, the internet is public. If you put up something on port 80 or 443, you have just published a book. You can't unpublish a book. I'm sorry if the affordances are shitty and the social media platforms intentionally mislead you into thinking that publishing is 'sharing,' but if you published it, you have to own it. You cannot unspeak, and if you do you or if a systems allows you to, then that is a fundamental violation of the social contract. If you fucked up, and want to appologise, or provide additional context, then by all means do so.

In cases where a tweet, post, etc. incites a brigade, there need to be ways to temporarily hide content, but if it is deleted forever, then there is a tempest in a teapot without any teapot for reference. Not that it will ever happen, but platforms like twitter should be held accountable for facilitating viral hatred and brigading, it would incentivize them to implement algorithms to damp the spread and to force additional context onto users before they are allowed to view a hot and bothered tweet (or similar). You must correctly answer these 10 questions about the context from which the author was speaking before you are allowed to retweet or even view this message. That might be a good compromise for 'surge' internet outrage.


> You cannot unspeak, and if you do you or if a systems allows you to, then that is a fundamental violation of the social contract.

There's no such social contract.


> 2. Need to remove a post that is actively agitating/acting as a focus point for some group that rises to the level of physical threats.

Mobs have short attention span and are mobilized by the newest controversy of the day. We're talking about recording history. You remove a bug from git, but you don't alter the entire history for it. You remove passwords from git, but you also change the current passwords.

There's no reason we can't 'fix' the present and record the past at the same time.


One example: Made comments as a young man on subjects, now don't agree with them. Or they can cost me the job.

Insulted Putin, or China, or MBS and now I need to go to their country


Privacy.

Don't want your picture taken all the time? Don't want everything you say recorded and archived? You might also not want everything you write to be archived. If you want control over your content, archives are a problem.


> Privacy.

> Don't want your picture taken all the time? Don't want everything you say recorded and archived? You might also not want everything you write to be archived. If you want control over your content, archives are a problem.

Good luck tracking down every company/user that has visited your page then. Any single one of them could be archivers. It's not hard to change a user agent to look like Google.

This is like arguing against archiving newspapers. If you explicitly publish it online for the world to see, you can't make people unsee it.


> Good luck tracking down every company/user that has visited your page then. Any single one of them could be archivers.

Could be, sure. And anyone could wear a hidden camera and secretly take your picture, or a wire and secretly record you.

If any of those undercover archivers re-publishes your content, send a DMCA notice and sue them. Where copyright infringement is a crime, report them.

There's a cultural component to this, I believe. Americans seem to feel that pictures, recordings etc taken in public are fair game, continental Europe has a different stance. Even in public, you can't take pictures of ordinary people and publish them (unless they're part of an extraordinary event).


>>Even in public, you can't take pictures of ordinary people and publish them (unless they're part of an extraordinary event).

I don't know which European country you have in mind specifically, arguably some are more strict on this than others(Germany, Austria) but most places you can take and publish pictures taken in public places without asking for permission. It's only an issue if someone is specifically a subject of your picture - so a wide shot of street is absolutely fine, but a photo zoomed in on someone's face is not, even if they were in a public space.


True, it's usually about being identifiable. Italy, France and the Netherlands require model release as well if you want to publish those pictures if I remember correctly. I don't know how Eastern Europe handles these cases.

Some also allow news content in general, even if the picture itself isn't noteworthy (i.e. illustrating a shopping mall vs somebody standing next to a politician being attacked with a cake), but I don't know about the intricacies.


At least in the US, model releases are strictly for photos used commercially (e.g. in advertising or marketing materials). Editorial use, which includes just putting it up on a blog or whatever, doesn't have restrictions.


> Americans seem to feel that pictures, recordings etc taken in public are fair game

I'm European, but I fail to see how anybody could have any expectation of privacy when in a public place. You either outlaw camera's completely or you have to accept that you might end up in the background of somebodies photograph. I don't think outlawing camera's is realistic.


> You either outlaw camera's completely or you have to accept that you might end up in the background of somebodies photograph.

You don't need to outlaw cameras any more than you need to outlaw knives to keep people from stabbing others. But as mentioned, there's a fundamental difference in the idea of privacy, I suppose. It can be understood as "something that happens in a non-public place" or it can be understood as a larger idea that you have a certain right to not be surveilled, recorded and stalked.


My point is that if cameras are not outlawed, then you can be photographed in public by accident, just because you happened to walk into a shot or happened to be in the background when some tourists wanted to photograph something. There's a difference between you can't photograph me while I'm in public and you can't harass me. Its not the act of walking in the same direction and in close proximity to the person that makes following them in public stalking, so you don't need to ban public photography of other people in order to prevent them form being surveilled, recorded and stalked.

I guess that I find the idea that you should expect privacy when in a public space kind of strange (its right there in the word: public), but that doesn't mean that I think its ok for someone to follow you around recording you (but not because of the actual act of being recorded, but rather because of the targeted nature).

Similarly, I think passive recording (ie non-targeted surveillance) of public spaces should be allowed in and of itself, but that its the use that dictates whether its abusive or not (ie if its done so that people can be identified, then that seems similar to me to following someone around, but if its done for the backdrop of a movie or art project, or its done to study foot traffic on a street.. basically there are many reasons which aren't abusive).


Then dont publish and share your pictures and conversations with everyone. Privacy goes out the window the moment you share stuff with everyone on your own. If you want control over your content you need access control. Its the difference of actually publishing pictures of yourself online instead of being photographed in public. Privacy covers the second not the first.




Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: