Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

I'm not sure about the "no deletions" benefits, except for being smug about "i know you said it, no take-basksies" in anonymous internet arguments.

EDIT: Also, what about information posts in the OP etc, that would be impossible in the no-edits world. And if you had a broken link in your post, then not fixing that in order to "preserve what you wrote" just means things are more broken in general when people are trying to find things. And I just thought of more details to add to this post rather than having to write three tiny posts, so there.

[itisnotlogical]

Sometimes anonymous internet arguments involve very public figures with lots of money, products to offer and/or political power. I know Trump has deleted at least one or two tweets or edited them. I can't remember any specific examples, but I'm sure brands have regretted social media posts and deleted them after negative backlash. That is information that a consumer or voter could use to make a decision, and therefor removing that content is an anti-consumer action.

I will admit, I thought of that only briefly. I was mainly annoyed by Internet arguments and people washing their hands of unpopular statements by deleting them.

[Frumple]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure squelching edits would cause ree to literally implode

Though you have a similar argument re: anti-consumer with proprietary information, intra business communication, and all that rot. Hiding it is, after all, hiding information that would inform consumer decision-making, and to a significantly larger degree than occasional media snafus...

[Reelya]

If there were no edits, I'd make three times the amount of posts that I do now. I edit to minimize my post count.

[helmacon]

Sometimes anonymous internet arguments involve very public figures with lots of money, products to offer and/or political power. I know Trump has deleted at least one or two tweets or edited them. I can't remember any specific examples, but I'm sure brands have regretted social media posts and deleted them after negative backlash. That is information that a consumer or voter could use to make a decision, and therefore removing that content is an anti-consumer action.

I will admit, I thought of that only briefly. I was mainly annoyed by Internet arguments and people washing their hands of unpopular statements by deleting them.

This is (vaguely) connected to another idea. Companies are not people, despite what the law says. They should not be allowed to enforce/not inforce things based on religion. They should not be allowed to lobby or interact with government officials the way they do, and they should not be allowed to edit or delete public statements or posts. (they can apologize and put out a statement retracting the sentiment, but not delete the original content unless they can prove it was done outside of company policy, or non-representative of them.)

[Reelya]

But if organizations can't retract harmful statements that just pollutes the conversation space even more. It's back to what sort of goals we want to achieve through that.

If e.g. McDonalds makes a racist advertisement and we demand that stays up, then that does two things, which you cannot separate. It links McDonalds forever to the racist sentiment, but it also provides social legitimacy to racists.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It seems to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Anything high-profile or high-controversy gets screenshotted or even Waybacked. I can't even remember an instance of "this authority figure posted something horrible but it wasn't recorded, you have to believe me".

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Starver]

This is a thing... (It overlays an unremovable "login or register" popover frame, but I assume it behaves well for others not as disadvantaged as me.)

I heard about it in an interview with a somewhat wildcard Member of Parliament who says he often tweets things just to soon delete them for posterity via this 'bot...

[helmacon]

This is a thing... (It overlays an unremovable "login or register" popover frame, but I assume it behaves well for others not as disadvantaged as me.)

I heard about it in an interview with a somewhat wildcard Member of Parliament who says he often tweets things just to soon delete them for posterity via this 'bot...

Oh, I like this thingy.

[ein]

seems pretty tame compared the gamut of topics that have been brought up so far but anyway the nintendo switch looks like a poorly engineered piece of shit and every new bit of information that comes out about it just makes it and nintendo look that much worse


with regards to editing/deleting posts, i don't think there's an issue with it simply because of archival services, which should definitely be encouraged, especially for public figures. for every public figure that edits or deletes a controversial tweet, there are many more ordinary people who might delete or edit a post for the sake of preserving their privacy. there are far more reasons people edit or delete posts and comments than 'oh no i said something offensive and now people are angry' or 'i don't want to continue this argument i'm losing nor do i want to admit defeat so i'm just going to delete the entire conversation' and removing the ability to make edits or delete posts would be more detrimental than the way things are now

[Sheb]

TBH if you said something offensive then realized that it was offensive, you should get to delete it. I also think that service like twitter should let a user delete his whole history when he/she turns 18 if wanted. We all say stupid shit when we're young.

[misko27]

Time to be the Devil's Advocate: On the other hand, if everything you said was there forever, we'd might do the impossible and force people to actually think before talking. You take for granted reasons to delete, but if there was no delete there would be fewer reasons to.

And all the time I spend double-checking my posts would be justified, because then I would seem so much more eloquent by comparison. Yes, this is a good plan. I support this.

It seems to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Anything high-profile or high-controversy gets screenshotted or even Waybacked. I can't even remember an instance of "this authority figure posted something horrible but it wasn't recorded, you have to believe me".

That's because when they delete it you never hear about it.

[penguinofhonor]

The group that would be most excited about an internet full of un-deletable posts: stalkers. I've seen several people delete information once they realized someone else was abusing it.

This would also stop many people in abusive situations from using the internet. There are plenty of trans people who can't talk about being trans to anyone they know personally without risking violence, and who use the internet to have some way to talk honestly with people. They frequently have to delete or edit their posts to make sure they aren't found by family members. As it is, the internet gives people in dangerous situations like this a voice - that shouldn't be taken away.

[Frumple]

Time to be the Devil's Advocate: On the other hand, if everything you said was there forever, we'd might do the impossible and force people to actually think before talking. You take for granted reasons to delete, but if there was no delete there would be fewer reasons to.

That flies completely in the face of reality, heh. Everything you say is already close enough to forever it only barely makes a difference, and that doesn't stop many people. Even folks that get burned for saying stupid shit only occasionally actually edit or delete what they said, and/or keep themselves under control in the future.

Will say, a casual thought is that the photoshopping et al community would probably expand massively under the considered conditions, and turn even more malicious than it already is. If people get used to a situation where claims of editing and whatnot isn't a thing -- where internet communication is more or less static into perpetuity -- they're probably going to end up less suspicious of any one bit of communication, and at the least no more likely to double check sources and context than they already are (which isn't very likely to begin with). Means content fabrication and distorting-via-decontextualization becomes that much easier to get away with.