201–210 of 317 posts
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 slowly moving to offline-first versions of all the information I care about. Edit: This change too also lends to the 'slow web' (or just slow $whatever) movement, which I'm a fan of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> People can still have local copies Yes, but under current copyright laws they are not allowed to distribute them without your consent.
In practice, the nature of the web allows everyone to keep copies of everything if they want. But if someone republishes it, then you need to use the DMCA process (for American websites) to take that content down if it violates copyright.
Going back to print, what if you print something you don't want out there anymore? Well if people have already bought your book or magazine, they have bought a right to that physical copy. They can even sell the book or magazine to anyone else (granted that the content isn't illegal).
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.
Says who?
I don't really see why this is a deal. If I decide I want to delete the content I put on Medium I very well want them to delete it everywhere else as well. One could read that as "Medium tries to protect their users content".
Completely agree with your comment, not sure why you're being downvoted. A blog is the same thing as a facebook account, would you like it if you couldn't delete your pictures on facebook?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are missing the point. The EU makes laws that govern - and at least try to - protect its citizens. If a document on the archive is created by a European citizen, then it is under EU law. That's why every company in the world right now that deals with European citizens is working on supporting GDPR. That also applies here.
Sorry, but the EU has no teeth here to enforce its laws on entities that exist outside the EU. When the first purely US based company is successfully fined or shut down by the EU I’ll believe in their ability to enforce GDPR.
Enforcement of national laws is very much a thing across borders, so private businesses outside the EU are right to be apprehensive about what is going to happen as GDPR enforcement ramps up.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/france-seizes-fr...
I think this is more likely to be unintentional. As another comment mentioned, article.is isn't affected. If you want to remove things from the Internet Archive, you can do so using your robots.txt: https://archive.org/about/faqs.php#14 https://www.fightcyberstalking.org/how-to-block-your-website...
robots.txt is really only supposed to be used for blocking the Internet Archives first snapshot, and not to remove existing snapshots – and even this might not be the case in the future as they try to preserve most snapshots. They made a few policy changes last year[1] to how they handle robots.txt files, to handle cases where a domain is sold and a new robots.txt file would result in deleting old data among other th…
As happened in this case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16919017
No? The article you linked says they've stopped paying attention to robots.txt for US government and military sites, but it looks like it still retroactively removes visibility for everything else.
I guess IA could change their practices. If medium or people like them start actively using robots.txt to try to retroactively remove things from visibility in the archive, perhaps IA will change their practices/policy. I would welcome it.
Over the last year I've come to trust effectively nothing on the internet. I've had so many Spotify playlists I was following disappear, whole artists, websites, articles, etc. I'm slowly moving to offline-first versions of all the information I care about. Edit: This change too also lends to the 'slow web' (or just slow $whatever) movement, which I'm a fan of.
It strikes me as less likely that Medium is doing something intentional to prevent reading deleted articles, and more likely that the author of this post is making assumptions.
Besides, archive.org has a policy of respecting copyright. All you have to do is ask them to not re-publish, and they will. No need to engineer wacky redirects that don’t work anyway.