Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

selectedintelligence.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 317 posts

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

#191

Post by vorpalhex »

dingaling wrote: post #172
alerighi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't, and I would like to know what Europe wants to do about it. Block wayback machine in Europe ? Well, I can still access it with a VPN if I want. Also I want to know what they will do about git and GitHub, or even blockchain project (how you delete something from a blockchain ?) The problem is that GDPR is a stupid legislation written by incompetent people that doesn't understand the subject and imposed with…

> cookie banner law, for example The 'cookie law' is actually subtle genius. If your site only uses cookies for operational reasons, such as enabling login or maintaining a basket, you don't need to inform the user. So anytime you see a cookie-banner that indicates that the site is doing something additional with cookies. Like tracking for ad-networks. It's a yellow-flag.

Except every single website just has a banner anyways because it's easier to cover your back then get legal involved every time you tweak something. So it has no meaning at all, in any way, except it's very confusing to some users.

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

#192

Post by vorpalhex »

raverbashing wrote: post #50
alerighi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't, and I would like to know what Europe wants to do about it. Block wayback machine in Europe ? Well, I can still access it with a VPN if I want. Also I want to know what they will do about git and GitHub, or even blockchain project (how you delete something from a blockchain ?) The problem is that GDPR is a stupid legislation written by incompetent people that doesn't understand the subject and imposed with…

Sorry, can you explain to me what's stupid about it? Not allowing information about people to be kept ad-infinitum (and sold ad-infinitum)? Allow data breaches caused by sheer incompetence to go unchecked? As much as I worry about its consequences, companies saw it coming.

The average computer user has difficulty searching their email or scheduling a meeting. You expect them to complete a nag screen about how their personal information is going to be used, with sliders for opt-in versus opt-out, every time they visit a new website?

Like the cookie nag, users are going to blindly click through until the confusing nag screen goes away and then be upset that it wasted their time.

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

#193

Post by vinceguidry »

ekianjo wrote: post #178
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.

> When I delete an article from my blog It's not yours anymore once it's public. It's like saying "when I do something crazy in public I want to be able to make everyone forget about it later on". That's not how things are supposed to work. > I don't want anyone to be able to read it anymore People can still have local copies so you have absolutely NO CONTROL.

Publishing used to be a really heavy-weight process, because printing and selling access carried a great deal of expense and ceremony. Trying to keep your book out of the local library to enhance sales revenue was a no-no.

Interesting how the landscape and conversation has shifted. Sadly, it doesn't appear possible to even have a definition of publishing that both maintains the right of the public to access information, and allows for individual privacy.

Options like disabling crawling are insufficient, essentially web servers have to read author's minds to divine their intent in order to not screw up. Don't crawl certain kinds of content and you might be accused of discrimination, providing services to one group and not others.

Ownership is a weird thing.

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

#194

Post by paulie_a »

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.

Suck it up. Once you go out of your way to make something public...it will remain public

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

#196

Post by zmk_ »

ekianjo wrote: post #178
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.

> When I delete an article from my blog It's not yours anymore once it's public. It's like saying "when I do something crazy in public I want to be able to make everyone forget about it later on". That's not how things are supposed to work. > I don't want anyone to be able to read it anymore People can still have local copies so you have absolutely NO CONTROL.

Except they do in Europe under the 'right to be forgotten'.

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

#197

Post by logfromblammo »

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.

I'm not sure you understand that putting something on an http server is publication. It is legally no different than standing on a street corner handing out flyers.

You are suggesting that the author of a flyer should be able to demand that everyone who took one burn it immediately, and have the force of law to ensure it happens.

That is not how copyright works. Copyright is intended to encourage the creation of new works, by granting for a limited time the exclusive right for an author to reproduce and copy their own works. Once those copies exist, and pass out of the author's possession, copyright does not grant any further control of them, other than to forbid those copies to be used to produce additional copies.

This, of course, raises the question of whether serving a digital document on an http archive server is violating the author's copyrights. A library may keep a copy of a pamphlet and allow patrons to view it without violating copyright. But web servers work by stamping out a perfect copy of the document and sending it out over the network. There is no physical embodiment of the document. If the archive were to display the document on a monitor, and then serve a video from a camera, pointed at that monitor, that would be analogous to viewing the physical copy of the pamphlet, but then that pointless fiction could be dispensed with by removing the monitor and camera and transmitting the digital rendering. So we have to fall back on the intent of the copyright act.

Clearly, the copyright act is intended to expand the amount of available works, by granting a temporarily profitable monopoly. Does the prevention of archiving further this purpose? Hell no. Archiving is essential for those works to eventually enter the public domain. When the original creator of a work has abandoned their attempt to monetize their efforts, to the point where they are now trying to destroy their work, it should escheat to the public domain immediately. If you didn't want it out there, the only remedy would have been to never publish it. You cannot erase prior publications by abusing copyrights. The law should not protect book-burners.

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

#198

Post by bachmeier »

zeth___ wrote: post #113
bachmeier wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>If the author changes his views, it wouldn't be acceptable for someone else to print new copies of the book. When the author burns their own book and forbids new ones from being made is the only time that it's acceptable to print new copies. Need I remind you of the purpose of copyright? >To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to…

I don't understand your point. "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right" means others cannot print copies of your books.

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

#199

Post by tothepixel »

baby wrote: post #102
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.

So you're incentivizing people not to write. That's bad, we should encourage people to write. It's OK to make mistakes. I see this problem as an even bigger problem with kids. Kids put everything they do online, and they will probably be ashamed of a lot of these things later in life. Comparing that to Facebook: I guess I shouldn't upload pictures on Facebook because it's against my right to want to see one of my old…

More like incentivizing people to accept responsibility for their actions.
Post reply on HN