Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Redact – Automated deletion for your content on social networks

redact.dev

41–50 of 73 posts

Re: Show HN: Redact – Automated deletion for your content on social networks

#43

beware deleting your own messages on discord ("self botting") is against tos and people have been banned for it, myself included

Can we blame Discord for this? Edit: Does Discord deletes all user messages when it bans an account?

Re: Show HN: Redact – Automated deletion for your content on social networks

#44
post #40
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you are assuming a specific connotation on "repercussions" Use more careful wording then. In my eyes, you're here to deny that a problem exists (for average people, not experts) and you're advocating for me to not participate in communities which I was historically able to participate in without having my data exfiltrated or stored in perpetuity. I've argued in the past that limits to public data could perc…

I don't know what to tell you. I feel pretty comfortable with my ethical stance here of "Don't abuse a public resource or intentionally create more work for other people purely for your own personal convenience."

I think I've made it pretty clear "personal convenience" is not the issue at stake here. I guess you're just arguing in bad faith at this point.

Re: Show HN: Redact – Automated deletion for your content on social networks

#46
Beware, 3 years ago I lost my facebook account after I deleted all my posts using a python script that opened my facebook wall and iterated over the posts. Couple of days later, I was banned on facebook and whatsapp and never restored my old fb account, but somehow got back my whatsapp's. Probably they watch for possible bot interactions and flag them.

Re: Show HN: Redact – Automated deletion for your content on social networks

#47
post #44
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what to tell you. I feel pretty comfortable with my ethical stance here of "Don't abuse a public resource or intentionally create more work for other people purely for your own personal convenience."

I think I've made it pretty clear "personal convenience" is not the issue at stake here. I guess you're just arguing in bad faith at this point.

As you said previously...

>Do you normally assume the worst about people when you debate them?

I don't know what I said here that seemed to offended you. If you point out something that truly crossed a line, I can apologize. You weren't the one who my original comment was directed towards and in your very first comment you admitted yourself that this type of behavior was potentially unethical. I don't think I have said anything worse than that and I don't know what I did that you consider bad faith. The one example you gave of a negative result was a recruiter calling your mother. Stopping that falls under the category of "personal convenience". We all get unwanted calls from time to time. It is annoying, but it takes a couple minutes out of your day and you move on. No reason to take that as justification for flooding public sites with "multi GB files full of random data" which is where the conversation started.

Re: Show HN: Redact – Automated deletion for your content on social networks

#49
post #2

Hey HN- Im one of the team members at redact. Redact is a cross platform electron app which allows you to delete content programmatically from most of the big sites out there (we are adding more every day). Meaning, you could say something like "Delete all posts I made on instagram with less than 15 likes in 2019" or (very soon) "Delete all my tweets that are political" We have been working on this for a little over…

[deleted]

Re: Show HN: Redact – Automated deletion for your content on social networks

#50
post #47
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I've made it pretty clear "personal convenience" is not the issue at stake here. I guess you're just arguing in bad faith at this point.

As you said previously... >Do you normally assume the worst about people when you debate them? I don't know what I said here that seemed to offended you. If you point out something that truly crossed a line, I can apologize. You weren't the one who my original comment was directed towards and in your very first comment you admitted yourself that this type of behavior was potentially unethical. I don't think I have sa…

Yeah, that's not "personal convenience". I would say this borders on safety. I don't think it's that difficult to imagine how this same dataset in the hands of a bad actor is to be abused.

In your case, my assumptions of you are based on how you continually downplay concerns to "not happening" or "that's no big deal". You also readily accused me of avoiding repercussions, then walking back and walking forward those claims in some kafka-esque dance.

"Arguing in bad faith" also doesn't mean you've offended me. It's just a realization that you have some other motivation at stake here. People don't just recategorize a safety and privacy issue as "personal convenience" while dancing around calling it a problem.

Post reply on HN