Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?

Post by simion314 » Tue, May 01, 2018, 11:04 AM UTC

jfaucett wrote: post #35

simion314 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law is meant to allow me to delete my account from your cool SV startup, and delete meaning actually delete the data and not deactivate the account but continue using or selling my data. The cookie law is a problem because lazy web developers did not implement it right, probably you complain about don't spam me law because it adds a bit of extra work for adding the unsubscribe link and implement the requierements…

There is big difference in law and regulation between intention and real-world effects. For instance, making marijuana illegal has the intention of decreasing drug addiction and dependence but has the effects of disproportionately encarcerating youth aka "criminals" under the new law for drug consumption, and thus limiting their opportunities in the socio-economic system. If you look into it I think parent is most li…

Post by zeth___ » Tue, May 01, 2018, 11:05 AM UTC

bachmeier wrote: post #107

zeth___ wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A simple solution: don't publish things you don't want people to read. This is no different to burning books that the authors no longer support the views in.

That's actually pretty different. If you purchase a book, you pay for a copy with the expectation of both parties that you own that copy. Putting someone else's work on a different website and serving it to others would be similar to printing copies of someone else's books. If the author changes his views, it wouldn't be acceptable for someone else to print new copies of the book. Making a copy of a website for your…

Post by gnode » Tue, May 01, 2018, 11:05 AM UTC

baby wrote: post #94

When I delete an article from my blog, it's because I don't want anyone to be able to read it anymore. Be it shame, inaccuracy, change of mood, etc... I think there is something fundamentally wrong with wanting to have EVERYTHING backed up at all time against the creators' will.

Post by icebraining » Tue, May 01, 2018, 11:06 AM UTC

jakeogh wrote: post #51

BlackFly wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR doesn't change anything in this respect. Copyright law applies. Why would the owner of the copyright make a complaint to the data protection authorities of the EU who might choose to do nothing when they could directly file a copyright infringement case? I suppose you could add insult to injury, but the data protection agency is likely to rule that the issue is one of copyright infringement.

I post a letter on a pole. You take a picture of it. I sue you for sharing that pic, and pretend you still have free speech.

Post by icebraining » Tue, May 01, 2018, 11:07 AM UTC

merinowool wrote: post #82

jfaucett wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is big difference in law and regulation between intention and real-world effects. For instance, making marijuana illegal has the intention of decreasing drug addiction and dependence but has the effects of disproportionately encarcerating youth aka "criminals" under the new law for drug consumption, and thus limiting their opportunities in the socio-economic system. If you look into it I think parent is most li…

And the effect is quite the opposite as consumption of drug and addiction is much more prevalent than in the places where it is legal. So regulation could have good intentions - and a lot of people believe in the intentions - but the effects are the opposite.