There’s a big difference between “public” and “stored in a glacier forever”.
You probably meant this as a rhetorical question, but I'd argue that yes, (for public available data at least) it probably should be. It'd enable solutions to a lot of problems we have with the current web, not least archival and broken links.
So there's a lot of reason to believe the 2020 snapshot won't also be online.
My intuition is that archiving data for long term historical use is different from datamining a [meta]data to maximize invasion of privacy. Also there is a difference in accessibility, stored inside a glacier very few people are going to actually read it.
I believe that if mass complaints from all over the EU emerged it would be a different story. But this does not look like the activities the GDPR was created for
You can't exactly GDPR request deletion of your information from a printed book, so I'm curious how GDPR applies to such physical archival mediums.
So you can feel better?
It's more akin to "hiding" - to me, deleted means unrecoverable, by anyone, at any time.
Even your OS doesn't "delete" files, until the actual sector on the drive is overwritten (depending on media used, of course).
I'm going to go against the HN zeitgeist and say no.
If I have the right to publish something to the web, I should also have the right to edit and delete it if I so choose.
"What happens on the Internet stays on the Internet. Forever."
So, "share only code no-one cares about and don't work on it much" seems to also be an option.