[HN Gopher] Archive Team: A Smattering of Tweets
___________________________________________________________________
Archive Team: A Smattering of Tweets
Author : miduil
Score : 93 points
Date : 2021-04-05 19:06 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (archive.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (archive.org)
| bern4444 wrote:
| I wonder how this will jive with GDPR/CCPA right to be forgotten
| laws.
|
| If a person has the right to be forgotten, I can't imagine that
| this decision will be allowed to continue for so long.
|
| Does the person have to ask for their information to be deleted
| under these laws? If so, this might be an additional avenue or
| good next step for protection laws.
| adolph wrote:
| _Non-EU data processors are subject to the GDPR if their
| business customer (data controller) is, according to the
| triggers mentioned above. To give an example: an online
| retailer based in the US advertises its products at Google
| AdWords and targets consumers in the EU and therefore falls
| within the scope of the GDPR. If the retailer uses the services
| of a cloud provider to manage its EU customer information,
| hosting of such data in the cloud will also trigger
| applicability of the GDPR. The cloud vendor must comply with
| the (limited) GDPR obligations for data processors._
|
| https://www.eu-rep.global/blog/article/applicability-of-the-...
|
| _No. The CCPA does not apply to nonprofit organizations or
| government agencies._
|
| https://www.oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa
| gorkish wrote:
| I really fail to see how these laws should or could
| realistically apply to information that is published publicly.
|
| It's reasonable to expect they have something to say about the
| expectations and rights that a user of a platform ought to be
| entitled to in their interaction with that platform. However
| it's rather another thing to follow that this permission should
| extend to anybody who legally can copy or retain that
| information under the tenants of fair use or first sale
| doctrine.
|
| This is akin to saying that an author could reasonably
| "unpublish" an article or a book because they somehow retain
| the ability to control dissemination of every copy of thier
| work in perpetuity. That is an absolutely ludicrous notion.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| >This is akin to saying that an author could reasonably
| "unpublish" an article or a book because they somehow retain
| the ability to control dissemination of every copy of thier
| work in perpetuity
|
| No, it is not the same. An author of a published book has
| intention to share it with the public and understands how the
| system works: you would not expect from this person to make
| any assumptions about the right to recall all the copies. An
| author of a post in social media may not recognize the fact,
| that the actual audience is beyond what he or she expected
| and that he or she is not in control of the access to this
| publication. The intentions and expectations are very
| different, and it is not the fault of social media users that
| they did not understand how to protect their privacy when
| living the digital life.
|
| The example with "public forum" is a good one here, because
| speaking in public offline (e.g. having a conversation with
| friends or addressing a crowd) does not imply that the exact
| words or other details will be remembered and recorded, on
| the contrary, without special effort taken by participants
| any conversation is _not_ recorded by default. That said,
| even if they are formally in their right and logically it
| makes sense that whatever is posted with public visibility
| should be expected to be copied and backed up, those archives
| are still attacking the privacy and _should_ be regulated by
| law. There 's much more public interest in that than in
| preserving some tweets, because they may appear important for
| history. After all, we spent thousands of years without
| recorded evidence of what people talked about and we are
| doing just fine.
| gorkish wrote:
| > An author of a post in social media may not recognize the
| fact, that the actual audience is beyond what he or she
| expected and that he or she is not in control of the access
| to this publication.
|
| I agree with you wholeheartedly were we discussing Facebook
| or any number of platforms that give the user the ability
| to restrict the audience to something that is not-quite-
| public and not-quite-private. However outside of DMs
| everything on Twitter is explicitly public.
|
| I see the point of desiring some ability to have an "open
| but private" conversation online, but again I really don't
| think it applies to Twitter as it currently exists. There
| are a lot of inequivalences when trying to apply the
| aspects you describe from the real world onto the online
| forum, not the least of which is the expectation of privacy
| when posting a public tweet has been explicitly waived.
|
| Should something like this exist? Sure, why not? For many
| of us oldschool geeks, IRC was kind of like this, but
| modern replacements like Discord and Slack take a
| completely contrarian view and probably couldn't succeed
| otherwise. Humans are still very much in the infancy of
| what it means to extend society into cyberspace, and the
| end result is increasingly looking like it's not going to
| be the way any of us pictured it.
| oytis wrote:
| Clicked a couple of items - only metadata is available, other
| items are "access restricted". I wonder how it works.
| [deleted]
| paxys wrote:
| It's weird to see the backlash against this when people here are
| the first to speak out about the need to preserve the internet.
| Like it or not, Tweets are part of the historical record, and I
| welcome this move.
| [deleted]
| abhayhegde wrote:
| I wonder if that is really necessary. Sure, some accounts (like
| politicians) may need to be preserved until their words may are
| no longer significant, but why keep the random tweets of
| irrelevant accounts.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| The present doesn't know what the future will find valuable.
|
| Put another way: Tomorrow's noteworthy person may be today's
| nobody.
| progval wrote:
| It's sometimes easier to archive everything than to find/decide
| what deserves to be archived.
| fireattack wrote:
| Does anyone test its completeness, especially for the older date?
|
| Also, i can't seem to be able to download the actual data (only
| the matadata), it says "Files marked with [lock icon] are not
| available for download." at
| https://archive.org/download/archiveteam_twitter_20210316071....
| miduil wrote:
| This makes it really easy to retrieve all previous tweets for
| certain accounts just by accessing this URL:
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/%2A/https://twitter.com/colorofb...
|
| What's kind of worrying is also that most people who retrieve the
| artifacts are bots, so clearly becomes an important data source
| for others.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > Total Items 396,027
|
| I don't think this is every tweet.
| JosephRedfern wrote:
| In this context, an item appears to be a multi-gigabyte
| "megawarc" archive, rather than an individual tweet.
| [deleted]
| sto_hristo wrote:
| There is no escape from cancellation. 500 years from now, someone
| running for a mayor of some colony somewhere in the Andromeda
| galaxy will have his aspirations crushed because of something
| their great*5 grandfather wrote on twitter.
| elric wrote:
| A couple of years ago, I discovered that archive.org had archived
| an ancient (1998ish) personal web page of mine. Back when the
| internet was a smaller, safer and simpler place. It contained a
| bunch of personally identifiable information, including a phone
| number and an address.
|
| It took me _months_ to have it removed from their archive. They
| are extremely (deliberately?) slow to respond to emails. They
| ignore EU law (right to be forgotten, and in this case GDPR on
| account of the PII). The domain no longer exists, and my
| registrar doesn 't keep records older than 10 years because of
| GDPR, so I couldn't use that as a way to prove the page was
| actually mine. In the end I had to send them a DMCA takedown
| notice, which only worked because the page footer had a
| "Copyright Elric $lastname" notice. After another goodly while
| they finally "removed" the page. I'm sure they didn't actually
| delete anything, but only flagged the page not to be public.
|
| If you have archived content which you can't conclusively prove
| is yours, you're pretty much screwed. And it seems like you can
| no longer prevent them from scraping your content, as they no
| longer respects robots.txt. I suspect their crawlers aren't nice
| enough to tell your their actual identity either.
| mids_hn wrote:
| I had screwed up by explicitly stating a Creative Commons
| license on the page, so I'm certain that it's hopeless. Fuck
| the Archive team, they can burn in hell. They are the epitome
| of lawful evil.
| rowanseymour wrote:
| This reminds me I'm due a visit to https://tweetdelete.net/...
| fireeyed wrote:
| I wonder whether they will be able to archive deleted tweets. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/02/politics/kfile-neera-
| tanden-d...
| booleandilemma wrote:
| I can't say I'm particularly excited about this. People are going
| to tweet things at 15 years old that they're going to regret at
| 30. Why should there be a permanent record of everything that was
| ever tweeted? It just comes across as obsessive and black
| mirror-y.
| f38zf5vdt wrote:
| It seems the whole world will have to relearn why forgiveness was
| once a virtue the hard way. In the near term, it's causing a
| bifurcation of society into people who exist and had an opinion
| versus those who didn't, or those who didn't _yet_. In time it
| seems like the former is just getting larger and larger.
|
| Imagine how the field of mathematics would have evolved if we
| simply cast aside those who had ever failed to solve a math
| problem correctly. It needs to be okay for people to make
| mistakes, otherwise we will never grow as a race.
| [deleted]
| bityard wrote:
| In 2021, I am a little surprised and amused to see so many people
| who seem to be shocked (shocked!) that the things they post on
| the Internet might get archived forever. Especially on HN, where
| technological literacy tends to be a at least a little bit higher
| than than the average tweeter.
|
| Even back in the early days, it was a common-sense rule of thumb
| that you never put something on the Internet that you wouldn't
| want written in the newspaper about you, even in "private" forums
| such as IRC channels and email. Let alone something as public as
| twitter.
| scandox wrote:
| Never tweet. It may be meant ironically but it's a really
| excellent piece of advice to keep in mind, even as you do in fact
| tweet.
| offtop5 wrote:
| Well said, I stopped using Reddit and Twitter because I
| realized a few things.
|
| First arguing with other angry people all day has never
| accomplished anything.
|
| Second no matter what you say, in 10 or 20 years it might be
| absurdly offensive and that can destroy your entire life. The
| dumbest thing you ever said at 19 is a part of your identity
| even when you're 42. But that only applies to the internet. If
| I said something really horrible to you at a bar, the worst
| that will happen is I'll probably just get kicked out.
|
| I say that on Twitter, you can destroy my career for the rest
| of my life
| themarkn wrote:
| It does seem like people ought to just think more about the
| permanence of what we put online and act accordingly. There
| is no way to guarantee ephemerality for anything you send to
| another person online. They can always record or whatever in
| some way. We have to act like this stuff is entered into the
| permanent record and be OK with that. There is nothing we can
| do to 100% prevent stuff being recorded somewhere.
|
| I agree we'd all be better off not judged on our younger
| attempts at "edginess" and stuff we said while figuring out
| who we are in our teens. But at a certain point we have to
| accept that posting anything online anywhere is _publishing_
| and if you _published_ a racist letter to the editor at 19,
| instead of said something offensive at a party, there is a
| different judgement there & it's justified.
|
| I do think in time the answer "I've grown a lot since that
| time and regret those tweets" is going to become more
| acceptable & people will be judged more on recent stuff they
| say and do.
| showerst wrote:
| I wonder if we aren't at a bit of a unique moment in that:
|
| 1. Norms around speech have changed quite a bit in a fairly
| short amount of time.
|
| 2. For the first time, we have a group of adults who were
| largely on the internet as young people.
|
| I think kids today are being raised to be much more
| cognizant of what they post online, (and what they say in
| general) so we just had this window from like 96-2015 or so
| where people where encouraged to post just about anything
| casually to the internet, and yet south-park style
| offensive comments were still ok for many kids.
|
| Obviously there's always going to be some edgy-kids saying
| stupid stuff, and I daresay _most_ young people will say
| something regrettable if you record them for long enough,
| but this might be a really large cohort.
| baby wrote:
| Oh no
| vxNsr wrote:
| Well I guess I'll be forgetting my account creds.
| snicksnak wrote:
| Of course this will get weaponized, if it isn't already.
|
| We've seen time and time again that a vile old tweet in the wrong
| hands can be very powerful, it's a ticking time bomb. Think 5 or
| even 10+ years down the road, some of the kids who are edgy on
| twitter today might go in to politics or hold some other high
| level position.
|
| I don't think the current climate is going to cool down anytime
| soon, but maybe something like this will either lead to mutually
| assured destruction or, what I'm hoping for, old tweets losing
| their power in the long run.
| temp8964 wrote:
| But the root of the problem is not the technology, it is the
| people and the culture.
|
| I have no doubt, using tweets to cancel people is a deliberate
| tactic of the far left activists to win the culture war. And
| they are winning, a lot.
|
| After a few more decades, cancel the First Amendment and put
| people in prison bc of wrong speech is not impossible. Right
| now the focus is race, gender, identity politics, but it can be
| easily switched to economic issues. Dark days are ahead of us.
| jelsisi wrote:
| although I hate the aspect of cancel culture where someone's
| tweets from several years ago are pulled up to destroy their
| career, I think a lot of the stuff around race, gender, ect.
| is headed in the right direction. We are at a point where
| hating on an group of people is simply not o.k. and I think
| the repercussion are fair (although it is socially acceptable
| right now to hate on white people, I view this as an
| overcorrection that will go away soon)
| temp8964 wrote:
| So maybe send them to prison for a few months / years or
| fine them a few thousand dollars is even better than
| destroy their career?
|
| Also, how about climate deniers, people say anti-union
| things? They will be handled in the next round.
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| check out this gentleman https://gist.github.com/travisbrown
| snicksnak wrote:
| yeah, there is whole army of those brave speech police
| officers out there
| gentleman11 wrote:
| High level position? What about automated scrapers and
| personality algorithms selling profiles to your future
| employers and insurance companies 20 years later? "This person
| used to swear a lot, which means they are more likely to be
| hiding <some condition> that <the data purchaser> is concerned
| about." In the gig economy, everyone is a brand that has to be
| built up and that can be torn down
| javajosh wrote:
| On the bright side it will be an interesting way to analyze how
| people's views change over time, seeing how they tweet over a
| long period. Note that the same tool that can condemn a person
| can also exonerate them: if they were once upon a time filled
| with hate an ignorance, and then over time changed, you can
| _show_ this path convincingly with a full tweet history. But
| yeah I hope the power to quote out of context to hurt people
| fades, and quickly.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Look at the media today. Very little is reported in full
| context. It's carved up, and presented in little snippets to
| imply something different, often with the intent to provoke
| outrage in the audience. No confidence that this will change;
| it is only going to get worse.
| showerst wrote:
| I suspect that as a larger and larger percent of the population
| has a cringey internet past to look back on, the power of old
| tweets will fade somewhat. It'll take a while though, and of
| course depends on how vile the past actions are.
| jelsisi wrote:
| I feel like this is an optimistic take. I know a strong
| number of people that have never thought up a controversial
| opinion in their life. They will always have that power over
| the rest of us.
| showerst wrote:
| I see it sort of like pot smoking. In about a two decades,
| we went from "probably the most dangerous drug in the
| United States today" (Reagan), to "I smoked but I didn't
| inhale" (Clinton) to "Of course I inhaled, that was the
| point." (Obama).
|
| It's not that pot suddenly epically skyrocketed in the
| voting-age population, it's just that enough people either
| had smoked pot, been around those who did, or watched media
| that made light of it to realize it wasn't a 100% mark of
| evil.
| KiranRao0 wrote:
| I wish I held that view.
|
| My view is that the majority of people will self-censoring
| and be too afraid of saying anything remotely controversial.
| iJohnDoe wrote:
| Is this really necessary?
|
| People need to be careful what they post online, but come on. Do
| they really need to archive every tweet?
|
| Seems like they are taking their mission too far. Archiving every
| post from Usenet dating channels from 20+ years, every tweet,
| etc. Seems a bit excessive at this point.
|
| This also can't help with the social cooling.
| causasui wrote:
| Whether or not every tweet in existence _should_ be archived is
| irrelevant. The fact is they _can_ be, so they should be
| treated as though they _will_ be.
|
| Saying "no please don't" will never stop something that is
| technologically possible from happening. Murphy's law applies
| here and everywhere in tech (and frankly, in most areas of
| life).
| the_local_host wrote:
| Even if obtaining old tweets was theoretically always
| possible, actually facilitating this seems like a combination
| of poor judgment and obsessive hoarding.
|
| If the "smattering of tweets" means everyone's tweets will be
| publicly available in perpetuity, then this is a downright
| _inhumane_ policy, and should not be pursued by any
| organization worthy of respect.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| Thank you for articulating this. I was trying to, and failing
| miserably.
| ajayyy wrote:
| To clarify: Archive Team IS NOT Archive.org.
|
| Archive team is a loose collection of volunteers, you can learn
| more and help out at https://archiveteam.org or by joining their
| channel on IRC.
| dang wrote:
| Thanks--we've changed the title above to that of the page.
|
| Submitted title was "Archive.org is archiving every tweet". The
| word "smattering" implies much less than "every". What's the
| actual situation?
| larrik wrote:
| I'm not seeing any reason on the site to think otherwise, can
| you elaborate?
| ajayyy wrote:
| Archive team just uploads data to archive.org. See the note
| at the footer of https://wiki.archiveteam.org/
| drivingmenuts wrote:
| Or, and here's a revolutionary thought, we teach people to think
| before they open their goddamn idiot pieholes?
|
| Impossible, I know, but still a goal worth aiming at.
| hexandcube wrote:
| If that's true, I'm deleting my Twitter account.
| pasttense01 wrote:
| Basically people should be posting anonymously on the internet
| (via distinct handles with no connection with one's real name),
| as is done in Hacker News (although a small percent do post
| enough details in their posts to connect with their real name).
| Lots of us started out posting with our real names in the last
| century (on Usenet for example) and after a while realized how
| poor an idea this was.
| [deleted]
| ghaff wrote:
| For the most part, if I don't want something linked to my name,
| I don't write it.
| buss wrote:
| Well I guess it's good that they're also going to be archiving
| Jason Scott's mean and abusive tweets. How archive.org doesn't
| reign in his behavior when he is such a publicly well known
| figure is beyond me.
| oytis wrote:
| A good reminder not to put things on other people's computers if
| you don't want these things to be on other people's computers.
| kmfrk wrote:
| Datasets like these feel like a recording of every conversation
| in a coffee shop: technically public, but practically private for
| the most part.
|
| Feels super gross to see.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| How has Twitter ever been "practically private"? We're talking
| about tweets-- not direct messages.
| dustinmoris wrote:
| Doing things in a public place != Doing things publicly
|
| You can do things with a sense of privacy in a public place.
| When I was young I bought and smoked a lot of weed privately
| in the middle of a public square.
| harperlee wrote:
| If 10 people follow you, then you are talking with family,
| not broadcasting to a nation, in practice. The audience can
| change when years pass.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| Misunderstanding the medium doesn't change what it is,
| practically speaking.
| coldpie wrote:
| Humans aren't perfectly informed and sometimes they make
| mistakes.
| fabatka wrote:
| But even then you know your tweets _can_ be read by
| anybody. If a platform is fundamentally public, I don 't
| understand how can anyone use it as a form of private
| communication.
| harperlee wrote:
| Well it's human nature, really. You are not constantly
| stepping back and rationally evaluating the present
| moment. If you have a small bunch of followers and you
| start a conversation with them, the topic can evolve
| towards more sensitive matters. Kind of like with
| normalization of deviance in privacy terms. You just
| focus on the content of the conversation. As soon as you
| are answering to anyone, your mind focuses on only that
| person who said something to you.
|
| Criminals post Facebook photos with evidence of their
| crimes constantly, as another example.
| fabatka wrote:
| Thanks, I can see your point better. I guess my real
| concern is about Twitter being considered the default
| communication channel for many people. I mean it is
| perfect for getting updates from orgs/teams the quickest
| way possible, but to use it as a forum... for me it is
| incomprehensible.
| [deleted]
| nanna wrote:
| Honestly, I wish tweets were treated like verbal exchanges more
| than written. Not everything that is said needs to be recorded
| for perpetuity. If a politician or someone powerful tweets, then
| sure it might be in someone's interest to record it. Good luck to
| them. But unless you're someone that people really care about -
| it should be fine to just delete your tweet for good. If that
| means something problematic was tweeted but lost, then so be it.
| entropie wrote:
| But tweets can be important. Who decides whats important and
| therefore needs to be archived and what not? No one. In the
| digital age harddrive capacity is basicially infinite so we
| save everything.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| This opinion always reads to me as: "I want to be able to speak
| in public without fear of consequence." That's never been the
| case and I don't know why anybody thinks it ever has. Digital
| technology created infallible memory, to be sure, but memory
| isn't a new thing.
| mdoms wrote:
| This is an incredibly toxic way to think about conversation.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| Thinking before I speak and having consideration for how my
| words might be interpreted in the future is "toxic"? Words
| you say to others have consequences. It makes sense to take
| that into consideration.
|
| That seems pragmatic and polite to me.
| coldpie wrote:
| The ability to broadcast some random thought you have to
| everyone on the planet, publicly archived and attached to
| your name, for all of eternity, is a new ability. We've
| never had it before, and we're discovering the
| consequences of that. I think it's reasonable to have
| some disagreement about how that ability should be
| handled without reducing that disagreement to whether or
| not words have consequences (obviously they do).
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| I don't think there is any useful conversation to be had
| re: "forgetting" that public data. It's a matter of fact.
| Once data is public it's public. There no magical
| "forgettable" bits for special classes of digital data.
|
| Deleting copies pof data from public and quasi-public
| forums isn't practically possible, short of taking away
| everybody's general purpose computer. I don't think
| that's going to happen (and I certainly wouldn't want it
| to).
|
| I think it's just a world we have to live with. I don't
| particularly _like_ it, but I don 't have a choice in the
| matter.
| harperlee wrote:
| On one hand, that's true. On the other hand, 10 years
| down the road, all you have is 140 characters, and you
| lose the whole context in which something was written.
| You know, "Qu'on me donne 6 lignes ecrites de la main du
| plus honnete homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire
| pendre" and all that.
| showerst wrote:
| In this context, we're specifically talking about young
| people, who are _literally not yet wired_ to properly
| evaluate consequences. It doesn't mean they get a pass
| for anything, but surely at some point in your life
| you've said/done something that wouldn't pass with modern
| standards, particularly if it can be cherry picked to the
| word.
| vlquant wrote:
| Everyone is triggered by different things. Your
| bureaucratic style "words have consequences" sends
| shivers down the spines of many people who grew up in the
| Eastern block.
|
| We know the language that precedes cancellations by now.
| totalZero wrote:
| The "words have consequences" line of thinking doesn't
| provide a rationale for the consequences. It is simply a
| way of avoiding critical thinking about harsh reactions
| to unpopular statements. You might as well say, "all
| fallout is good fallout."
|
| Quoting Mohandas Gandhi: "Freedom is not worth having if
| it does not connote freedom to err and even to sin. If
| God Almighty has given the humblest of His creatures the
| freedom to err, it passes my comprehension how human
| beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight
| in depriving other human Beings of that precious right."
|
| Most of those words that have "consequences" nowadays
| aren't unlawful or even particularly malicious, and some
| are in fact just jokes and statements of opinion that go
| against the grain of the zeitgeist. Often, the reaction
| is more damaging than the words themselves.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| The trouble with that is that the old tweets from an
| immature brain are amplified beyond their original
| context, intentionally, so that they hurt a lot of
| people, and then a punishment is applied as if the author
| had just deliberately blasted the world with their remark
| yesterday. People are using the private conversation
| analogy because so many teens just meant to write to a
| few friends or use it as a sort of diary. To make them
| responsible not only for their youthful immaturity their
| whole life, but for any mental health struggles, and for
| not having a perfect understanding of the nature of the
| service, is cruel and non-productive social behavior from
| the adults.
|
| You're having trouble understanding because you are only
| imagining yourself making these decisions, and you are a
| fully grown adult who handles life's pressures well and
| you understand Twitter from a product perspective. You
| will need to consider how others use the service to
| understand why expecting perfect behavior across every
| person's entire life is unwise collective behavior.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| Yours and so many other posts here seem like an argument
| for now allowing children to use these kinds of services.
|
| It also sounds like parenting needs to take into account
| this new reality. To the extent that it applies in my
| household I know my wife and I are.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| I'm neutral on a legal intervention but I certainly agree
| parents should heavily educate and be restrictive until
| enough has sunk in. We do similarly with our family.
|
| My main concern here is to explain why a young person's
| use should not be treated like the use of a sophisticated
| social media user who is older and more mature.
| SamBam wrote:
| Why? If what's being held against you later is so awful
| that it can't be explained away with "I was immature"/"I
| was angry in the heat of the moment"/"I have since learned
| that that's not correct," then it must have been a pretty
| toxic thing to say in public.
| jowsie wrote:
| The bigger issue is most of us said/did dumb shit 20+ years
| ago, but luckily there was no widespread put everything on
| the internet movement so we get judged by how we are now, not
| how we was as kids. While I agree people should be held
| responsible for things they say/do, I also think that at this
| exact moment in history, people give little to no thought to
| the idea that people change/grow as they age. Just look at
| Jenna Marbles on YouTube, she's in self exile because she
| wore too much fake tan in a video from 10 years ago.
| wott wrote:
| > The bigger issue is most of us said/did dumb shit 20+
| years ago, but luckily there was no widespread put
| everything on the internet movement
|
| Well, I found some of my conversations on BBSs or Fidonet
| from over 25 years ago are now on the Web...
|
| So what you say was right as long as it was indeed just
| 'said', but as soon as something was written and/or
| recorded somewhere, it may resurface on the Internet one-
| day, even though it was never intended to appear on the
| Internet.
| crocsarecool wrote:
| Agreed! I don't even know stuff is wrong or insensitive
| sometimes. Someone recently told me not to say the word
| "Jew." I wasn't saying it in a bad way - we were discussing
| a friend who is Jewish, but I didn't know just saying the
| word "Jew" could possibly be taken badly.
|
| When I was younger, I said something about a "Jap." I
| honestly was just trying to take a shortcut by saying Jap
| instead of the full "Japanese" like saying burger instead
| of hamburger. I got a shock when I was told that was bad.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I suggest email for such a use case. To have public
| conversations is to open the door to public criticism in
| perpetuity of what was discussed.
|
| https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/new-york-times-rule/
|
| "New York Times rule is a commonsense rule of ethical conduct
| that a person should not do anything arguably newsworthy in
| public or in private that one would mind having reported on the
| front page of a major newspaper. The rule ultimately protects
| defamatory falsehood.
|
| New York Times rule is also known as New York Times test or New
| York Times v. Sullivan rule."
| SamBam wrote:
| > _or in private_.
|
| Not sure how email is an answer. It sound like the rule is
| "don't do/say it at all, if you didn't want it to be public."
| throwawayboise wrote:
| It used to be that a private conversation with another
| person was private. At worst, it was "one person's word
| against another" so you could operate on a basis of "don't
| write it down" if you wanted something to be private.
|
| Not sure how much longer that will be the case. People will
| soon be walking around with the personal equivalant of a
| police officer's body camera, always on, recording every
| moment and every interaction with another person.
|
| I would be reluctant, and probably refuse to talk to anyone
| wearing such a device, but it won't be long before it's not
| even obvious.
| ghaff wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised at all if, at some point, a lot
| of people routinely wear some sort of AR when out in
| public. It's possible there will be widespread social
| pushback (i.e. the Glasshole factor). But I wouldn't bet
| on it if such a thing were genuinely comfortable and
| useful.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| In a sense. My point is, you cannot have public
| conversations and then be aghast when they are stored or
| captured for later retrieval and critique. That's not a
| logistics and storage issue, that's a breakdown of critical
| thinking and nuance in the public sphere (where rational
| participants would view a tweet or tweet discussion
| contextually and within the time it occurred, as opposed to
| present day outrage porn fuel).
|
| The archiving should happen, even if the corpus must go
| into cold storage ("unavailable to the public") until a
| time more reasonable, civil discourse over the contents can
| occur, but those who participate in online conversations
| should do so cautiously for obvious reasons.
|
| Tangentially, "never put something in writing you wouldn't
| want to see on the front page of a newspaper" is just good
| life advice. Have a phone call or in person meeting
| instead.
| contravariant wrote:
| Perhaps, but is it really all that surprising that something
| not merely said but broadcast to the entire world is remembered
| in perpetuity?
| lifthrasiir wrote:
| The very presence of retweets and likes means they can't ever
| be treated like verbal conversations. It is a written record
| mistaken as ephermeral one, period.
| saon wrote:
| This kind of thing can never be materially accomplished though.
| Whenever you post something publicly to the internet, any
| recipient can back it up indefinitely, separately from the
| origin network. This is a fundamental material reality. No
| amount of legislation or centralized control of the content can
| overcome it.
|
| Ultimately people will have to culturally/collectively get over
| everyone's internet past, change their own behavior after
| understanding this new reality, and deal with the consequences
| of their speech. Even if it were possible, having the ability
| to remove all copies of past speech would probably produce
| worse social outcomes. I think I'd rather deal with a person's
| complicated history, than a history that has been selectively
| revised to deceive me.
|
| Private, perishable communication is only possible peer-to-
| peer, through a secure tunnel or network you own, with a person
| you trust to delete it. The same applies to verbal speech
| honestly, if you tell somebody something in confidence, it's up
| to them not to tell anybody else. People just need to accept
| that using twitter is like making a press release and not like
| talking to some friends.
| chrisdone wrote:
| The Economist stylized this as "tweets are appraised as speech,
| but punished as writing."
| tw04 wrote:
| But they aren't and won't ever be, and people should stop
| treating them like they are. It's no different than going to
| your local public square full of 200 people holding camcorders,
| and making a bunch of stupid statements.
|
| Did we all do stupid stuff when we were younger: absolutely.
| Would I want the entire world to see what I did as a teenager
| and judge me for it? Absolutely not.
|
| Which is EXACTLY why I personally think society should just not
| allow people under about the age of 25 to even be on social
| media in the first place. I know, I know, that will never
| happen because _insert reason_ - but if we don 't want
| everyone's actions to be recorded in perpetuity we should
| probably stop allowing them to post those actions in a forum
| that's open to the entire world and easily recorded. You can
| make laws until you're blue in the face, it's not going to stop
| an individual from saving whatever stupid thing you said or did
| and leaking it anonymously should the moment present itself.
| wmichelin wrote:
| This is why Snapchat became popular, and everyone seems to
| have forgotten the value in that feature-set. Instagram
| blatantly cloned half of the Snapchat feature-set and
| Snapchat itself has also gone to shit.
| elric wrote:
| So your answer to "young people doing dumb things" is banning
| young people from doing dumb things until they reach
| $arbitraryAge? That seems unlikely to happen.
|
| There's a difference between 200 people in a square watching
| and filming you, and between an organization doing the same
| thing _and then making it available to all of mankind for the
| rest of time_.
| tw04 wrote:
| Yes... We ban children from doing all sorts of things until
| they're an appropriate age to make better choices. From
| getting married to driving to smoking cigarettes.
|
| As I said, I doubt it will happen, that doesn't mean it
| shouldn't happen.
| jelsisi wrote:
| One of the first things I did when I graduated from high
| school was delete my twitter account. It was in an effort to
| get myself together and become more focused in school. Seeing
| people's careers damaged by tweets when they were kids makes
| me feel more and more that deleting my account was one of the
| best decisions I have made.
|
| If I ever have kids, I'll make a concerted effort with other
| parents to prevent them from joining any social media before
| they turn 16.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| > If I ever have kids, I'll make a concerted effort with
| other parents to prevent them from joining any social media
| before they turn 16
|
| Honestly that seems unlikely. If all their friends are on
| some platform they will find a way to be on it also. Best
| you can do is really try to educate them on how badly
| things can boomerang and that the internet never forgets.
| But even at 16, most kids don't have the life experience
| and perspective to really understand this.
| dustinmoris wrote:
| > It's no different than going to your local public square
| full of 200 people holding camcorders, and making a bunch of
| stupid statements.
|
| I'm afraid it really isn't the same at all. Even when I was
| 25 I did stupid things. I would get drunk in a night club,
| like everyone else in my age, and on our way home we might
| have a piss in the middle of a big public square at 4am
| because we were drunk and stupid. Does that mean I would also
| get my bits out in the middle of a public square when there
| are 200 people staring at me? No.
|
| Doing or saying things in a public place != Publicly saying
| or doing things
|
| You can do private things in a public place, and that's how
| many people with a very small following feel on social media.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| They're doing public things, regardless of their feelings.
| They could publish with more privacy if they wanted, but
| there's always the desire of winning the five minutes of
| fame lottery.
| gentleman11 wrote:
| This is a bit tangential, but I wish we weren't seeing links to
| tweets showing up as hn stories. It's not a legitimate news
| source, and it bans people left and right for nothing because
| they have such serious botting and conspiracy theory problems
| paxys wrote:
| HN isn't just for discussing "legitimate news sources"
| (whatever that even means). People can post anything they want
| from any source.
| gentleman11 wrote:
| You can't say anything of substance in 280 characters, or
| find room to cite references. It's just a bunch of
| disembodied statements meant to go viral to build peoples
| followings or get people mad, with no meaningful discussion
| back and forth (for the same reasons). Maybe I'm just getting
| old, but Twitter seems like a bad way to get and share
| information, even without the random bans. Apologies if I
| just haven't seen the good parts of Twitter yet
| paxys wrote:
| That is debatable (I personally don't agree with your view
| at all), but regardless people are still allowed to post
| and discuss meaningless content here.
| dustinmoris wrote:
| What are the legal implications of this in regards to the right
| of being forgotten, copyright laws or even the simple issue of
| moderation? For example if someone posts a hateful tweet or some
| extremist content (e.g. photos of terror, etc.) which goes
| against the law (and therefore gets taken down by Twitter) is it
| not reprehensible if archive.org is re-publishing such content?
| mvzvm wrote:
| The reprehensible act is the tweet. Keeping records and
| archives of what people do in a public forum is not.
| secondcoming wrote:
| But what is not considered reprehensible today may be
| considered reprehensible tomorrow.
| dustinmoris wrote:
| I disagree. Twitter often takes content down which is very
| problematic, including of very serious sexual and criminal
| nature and even other non criminal content such as self
| harming content by children or other people who go through
| troubling times. Not everything is a Donald Trump tweet and I
| see serious problems by a blanket unmoderated archive.
| adamrezich wrote:
| the only reason one could be concerned about/afraid of this is if
| they recognize that the window of politically acceptable thought
| is shifting faster than ever these days, such that today's
| seemingly levelheaded opinion could be cause for cancellation
| years down the road. _that_ should be the actual cause for
| concern, not the fact that things that were publicly posted to
| the Web are being archived.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-05 23:01 UTC)