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

181–190 of 317 posts

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

#181

Post by a3_nm »

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.

> People can still have local copies

Yes, but under current copyright laws they are not allowed to distribute them without your consent.

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

#182

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

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…

>So you're incentivizing people not to write. That's bad, we should encourage people to write.

The publicizing of things said by then Presidential candidate Donald Trump leading up to the 2016 election would incentivize people to not talk in private. Should we have banned any details about the incident from being spread if the one who said it didn't agree with knowledge of what was said spreading?

If being able to undo what you wrote so that it won't be held against you is a good thing, why wouldn't being able to undo what you said so that it won't be held against you also be a good thing?

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

#183

Post by a3_nm »

gnode wrote: post #105

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...

This information is outdated, and ia_archiver now disobeys robots.txt (see https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-sea...). You can still get your website removed from Internet Archive but you have to contact them.

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

#184

Post by ekianjo »

a3_nm wrote: post #181
ekianjo wrote: post #178

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.

That's not the point. The OP mentioned he wanted to make sure nobody can read it anymore. Private copies prevent that scenario.

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

#186

Post by OrganicMSG »

chx wrote: post #175
OrganicMSG wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything you have ever published is no longer entirely yours and the act of doing so is also a relinquishment of control. Only secrets can ever really be regarded as possessions. Archivists should not require permission to store that which has been put out into the world.

> Anything you have ever published is no longer entirely yours and the act of doing so is also a relinquishment of control. This is an incredibly bold and huge presumption which absolutely does not mesh with the Berne Convention to begin with.

It meshes well with reality though.

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

#187

Post by emddudley »

chx wrote: post #175
OrganicMSG wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything you have ever published is no longer entirely yours and the act of doing so is also a relinquishment of control. Only secrets can ever really be regarded as possessions. Archivists should not require permission to store that which has been put out into the world.

> Anything you have ever published is no longer entirely yours and the act of doing so is also a relinquishment of control. This is an incredibly bold and huge presumption which absolutely does not mesh with the Berne Convention to begin with.

It meshes perfectly fine. You don't give up all control but you do give up a lot of control.

When you publish and sell a book, you no longer control who that book is later given or sold to. You retain only rights over the ability to make copies, and even then, you can't block people from making copies for personal use.

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

#188

Post by pavel_lishin »

baby wrote: post #142
bufferoverflow wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you published your article though, you wanted people to read it. You can't blame the people around you for changing your mind. And "nothing gets deleted on the internet".

I won't blame people for storing a private copy, but I will blame people for sharing such copy if it is against my will, especially if they're claiming it is their right and thus my integrity has to suffer.

> and thus my integrity has to suffer.

What sort of integrity is it, that can be adjusted by erasing your past actions, to hide the mistakes you've made and only present the successes?

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

#189

Post by foldr »

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…

>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.

Do you mean acceptable from a legal point of view? Because I seriously doubt that it is.

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

#190

Post by vorpalhex »

simion314 wrote: post #26
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…

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…

> because lazy web developers did not implement it right

No, because the legislators fundamentally misunderstood cookies. Almost any website needs to have some basic tracking of users for fraud detection, bot detection, and yes, basic analytics.

Instead of writing out a thoughtful approach, we get a mandatory nag screen right up there with "This product is known to cause cancer in the state of California" on anything sold ever. Users ignore them because the information isn't useful - infinite noise, no signal.

This is the opposite of the CAN SPAM law which did have thoughtful requirements - allowing exceptions for account related emails, requiring one-click unsubscribe but also giving systems a period to obey that to handle mail already in transit.

GDPR has so far been grossly in the cookie nag screen category, except instead of a tiny bar on visiting a page I get a multi-select based dialog of doom. The answer most companies are going to take is simply not market services to folks in the EU, and those that do will implement annoying nag screens.

More rules blindly applied rarely solves problems.

Post reply on HN