Archive Team: A Smattering of Tweets • Hacker News Board

Re: Archive Team: A Smattering of Tweets

#21

Post by toomuchtodo » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

nanna wrote: post #2

Honestly, I wish tweets were treated like verbal exchanges more than written. Not everything that is said needs to be recorded for perpetuity. If a politician or someone powerful tweets, then sure it might be in someone's interest to record it. Good luck to them. But unless you're someone that people really care about - it should be fine to just delete your tweet for good. If that means something problematic was twee…

I suggest email for such a use case. To have public conversations is to open the door to public criticism in perpetuity of what was discussed.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/new-york-times-rule/

"New York Times rule is a commonsense rule of ethical conduct that a person should not do anything arguably newsworthy in public or in private that one would mind having reported on the front page of a major newspaper. The rule ultimately protects defamatory falsehood.

New York Times rule is also known as New York Times test or New York Times v. Sullivan rule."

Re: Archive Team: A Smattering of Tweets

#22

Post by mdoms » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:52 PM UTC

EvanAnderson wrote: post #19

nanna wrote: post #2

Honestly, I wish tweets were treated like verbal exchanges more than written. Not everything that is said needs to be recorded for perpetuity. If a politician or someone powerful tweets, then sure it might be in someone's interest to record it. Good luck to them. But unless you're someone that people really care about - it should be fine to just delete your tweet for good. If that means something problematic was twee…

This opinion always reads to me as: "I want to be able to speak in public without fear of consequence." That's never been the case and I don't know why anybody thinks it ever has. Digital technology created infallible memory, to be sure, but memory isn't a new thing.

This is an incredibly toxic way to think about conversation.

Re: Archive Team: A Smattering of Tweets

#23

Post by offtop5 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:53 PM UTC

scandox wrote: post #15

Never tweet. It may be meant ironically but it's a really excellent piece of advice to keep in mind, even as you do in fact tweet.

Well said, I stopped using Reddit and Twitter because I realized a few things.

First arguing with other angry people all day has never accomplished anything.

Second no matter what you say, in 10 or 20 years it might be absurdly offensive and that can destroy your entire life. The dumbest thing you ever said at 19 is a part of your identity even when you're 42. But that only applies to the internet. If I said something really horrible to you at a bar, the worst that will happen is I'll probably just get kicked out.

I say that on Twitter, you can destroy my career for the rest of my life

Re: Archive Team: A Smattering of Tweets

#24

Post by larrik » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:53 PM UTC

ajayyy wrote: post #20

To clarify: Archive Team IS NOT Archive.org. Archive team is a loose collection of volunteers, you can learn more and help out at https://archiveteam.org or by joining their channel on IRC.

I'm not seeing any reason on the site to think otherwise, can you elaborate?

Re: Archive Team: A Smattering of Tweets

#25

Post by gorkish » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:53 PM UTC

bern4444 wrote: post #5

I wonder how this will jive with GDPR/CCPA right to be forgotten laws. If a person has the right to be forgotten, I can't imagine that this decision will be allowed to continue for so long. Does the person have to ask for their information to be deleted under these laws? If so, this might be an additional avenue or good next step for protection laws.

I really fail to see how these laws should or could realistically apply to information that is published publicly.

It's reasonable to expect they have something to say about the expectations and rights that a user of a platform ought to be entitled to in their interaction with that platform. However it's rather another thing to follow that this permission should extend to anybody who legally can copy or retain that information under the tenants of fair use or first sale doctrine.

This is akin to saying that an author could reasonably "unpublish" an article or a book because they somehow retain the ability to control dissemination of every copy of thier work in perpetuity. That is an absolutely ludicrous notion.

Re: Archive Team: A Smattering of Tweets

#26

Post by EvanAnderson » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:55 PM UTC

mdoms wrote: post #22

EvanAnderson wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This opinion always reads to me as: "I want to be able to speak in public without fear of consequence." That's never been the case and I don't know why anybody thinks it ever has. Digital technology created infallible memory, to be sure, but memory isn't a new thing.

This is an incredibly toxic way to think about conversation.

Thinking before I speak and having consideration for how my words might be interpreted in the future is "toxic"? Words you say to others have consequences. It makes sense to take that into consideration.

That seems pragmatic and polite to me.

Re: Archive Team: A Smattering of Tweets

#27

Post by ajayyy » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:55 PM UTC

larrik wrote: post #24

ajayyy wrote: post #20

To clarify: Archive Team IS NOT Archive.org. Archive team is a loose collection of volunteers, you can learn more and help out at https://archiveteam.org or by joining their channel on IRC.

I'm not seeing any reason on the site to think otherwise, can you elaborate?

Archive team just uploads data to archive.org. See the note at the footer of https://wiki.archiveteam.org/

Re: Archive Team: A Smattering of Tweets

#28

Post by SamBam » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:55 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #21

nanna wrote: post #2

Honestly, I wish tweets were treated like verbal exchanges more than written. Not everything that is said needs to be recorded for perpetuity. If a politician or someone powerful tweets, then sure it might be in someone's interest to record it. Good luck to them. But unless you're someone that people really care about - it should be fine to just delete your tweet for good. If that means something problematic was twee…

I suggest email for such a use case. To have public conversations is to open the door to public criticism in perpetuity of what was discussed. https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/new-york-times-rule/ "New York Times rule is a commonsense rule of ethical conduct that a person should not do anything arguably newsworthy in public or in private that one would mind having reported on the front page of a major newspaper. The…

> or in private.

Not sure how email is an answer. It sound like the rule is "don't do/say it at all, if you didn't want it to be public."

Re: Archive Team: A Smattering of Tweets

#29

Post by buss » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:56 PM UTC

Well I guess it's good that they're also going to be archiving Jason Scott's mean and abusive tweets. How archive.org doesn't reign in his behavior when he is such a publicly well known figure is beyond me.

Re: Archive Team: A Smattering of Tweets

#30

Post by chrisdone » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:57 PM UTC

nanna wrote: post #2

Honestly, I wish tweets were treated like verbal exchanges more than written. Not everything that is said needs to be recorded for perpetuity. If a politician or someone powerful tweets, then sure it might be in someone's interest to record it. Good luck to them. But unless you're someone that people really care about - it should be fine to just delete your tweet for good. If that means something problematic was twee…

The Economist stylized this as “tweets are appraised as speech, but punished as writing.”