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 picture disappear later?
People should be encouraged to create, but with the knowledge that anything published may be retained by others, and that it can have consequences. No technological measure will prevent people from making personal backups or gaining access to data published under the presumption of secrecy or time-limited availability — even if all the layers of DRM work, the analogue hole will always be there.
Rather, invest in teaching kids how to safely publish under pseudonyms or anonymously if they wish to publish their angst-ridden teenage vampire poetry. You can always abandon your connection to that work that way — even if the work lives on for all the world to see.
> Comparing that to Facebook: […]
You should indeed never upload anything that you might wish to expunge at a later date. You have the right to see an old picture gone from Facebook, but you don't have the means to enforce removing it from your cousin's private backup on their own computer.
> I guess I shouldn't upload pictures on Facebook because it's against my right to want to see one of my old picture disappear later?
If think that you will ever want real control over the pictures, then yes, you should avoid posting them to Facebook. I'd think that that's fairly obvious.
You are purposefully muddying the issue of access. If you upload your pictures on a password protected ftp server no one will know or care when you delete them. If you upload them on a publicly accessible website, despite what outdated laws on copyright say, you won't be able to withdraw them and that's a feature.
Facebook is a monstrosity that pretends to be a password protected server but leaks your data by design. Do not try to equate someone unpublishing a work after they wrote, uploaded and publicized it with someone removing a drunken status update that should have never been public in the first place.
Plenty of good. As a writer myself, sometimes just having these thoughts put out into form is a very gratifying process. When the inspiration hits you, nothing feels worse than not being able to express these thoughts and feelings in a way that feels appropriate.
Likewise, sometimes people write dumb things in a fit of passion. They write something that is a blemish on their otherwise fine history or that no longer reflects what they believe anymore.
While I'm on the side of the Internet Archive here, I can definitely appreciate that it's not an open and shut case. Sometimes the yearning for information to be free is at odds with our want for privacy. Tools like Medium, Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are like the gun in the house to someone suicidal (to use a very bad analogy) - an easy and convenient tool that allows for a very bad spur of the moment decision to be made.
I know I've done stupid things on games and on message boards in the past, and I'm only so lucky that this data likely isn't available anymore. Some of it was me being a dumb kid. Some of it was me just being an angry kid, but I am 100% grateful that this information is only remember by myself and a handful of others. A very different past me had a very stringent set of beliefs which I now have come to accept were very bad beliefs, and I did bad things in general as a result of them.
Is it really fair that I have the benefit that time forgot all these dumb things I've done simply because I was born before a time when Twitter/Facebook were common place? Before data permanence was really possible on a global scale? I'm open to the idea of some review on archiving data like this; I want the Internet Archive to be able to archive this stuff, but it would be really nice if there was a way to vault it for a reasonable period of time as well by request. Otherwise, you end up in a position where no one wants to write or produce or do anything in a fit of passion as a result of knowing that everything is permanently preserved.
I don't have an answer aside from "vaulting" the data, and I don't think that's a good answer. But I also don't think it's black and white like you're trying to make it.
I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. Anyone can archive things privately. If you take away public archives, this means that only obsessive lunatics and the wealthy will be able to wield archived material as an instrument of power.
Our culture definitely needs to evolve a little and become more forgiving of youthful ignorance. That's really the only long-term solution.
Perhaps this is also a good use case for services like Hermit[1], which allows limited sharing among friends and other writers. The notion of "trying out" an idea on a platform with enormous public reach seems foolish at best. Comics test their new material in hole-in-the-wall dive bars for a good reason!
I think you're right, that ultimately society needs to mature and realize that everyone did something stupid in their past and at some point has thought/said/done stupid things. We should hold people accountable when they refuse to change, but right now we're missing the rehabilitation aspect of all this and just focusing on the punishment.
Again, I really don't have an answer. I would err on the side of caution and say IA should continue to back stuff up and it's wrong to set up the time-bombs that also affect IA. But I do feel we need a way to accommodate some privacy still without silencing people outright for just plain dumb opinions and ideas.
>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?
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 picture disappear later?