RE: https://cosocial.ca/@evan/117119678988918978

Hi hi hello, educator of archivists here. I have this discussion when I teach digital curation and collections, because archives-style consent processes break down at social-media scale.

One thing I do try to impress upon students is NO MEANS NO unless there's an overriding public stake (e.g. for a politician).

Then I tell them THE FEDI SAID NO, do what's right and leave people the hell alone.

Because no still means no.

Every once in a while somebody -- unfortunately often a librarian or archivist -- pops up with "let's archive the Fedi!" and we all have to go smack them down again.

Leave. People. The. Hell. Alone. It's legit to think of social media as ephemeral (and the Fedi has affordances for that, such as timed message disappearance).

So yeah. Leave. People. The. Hell. Alone. Historians' convenience does not override my privacy and ephemerality wishes.

Or, to put it perhaps a little more zeitgeistily:

DO NOT BRING YOUR PERVERT GLASSES TO MY BLOCK PARTY.

@dsalo Good lord, he really is an insufferable man who doesn't accept that the users of "his" creation won't bend to his wishes. I used to only have him muted, but he gets a full block now.

@futzle @dsalo The only reason I don't is that I like to keep tabs on what his latest shit is, and who is boosting him so I can call them out on it.

He is truly a little piece of shit.

@dsalo I think the root of this problem is that people who want to be forgotten historically chose the absolute worst platform for their communication: a public[1] microblogging platform.

I strongly believe a searchable, archived Fedi would be immensely useful and necessary so please don't suggest that everyone in the Fedi are on the same page about this. I'm not against having controls (either opt-in or opt-out) to control indexing on a per-account basis, but unfortunately we can't even seem to have a proper discussion about the possible solutions.

[1] The consent so many people seem to miss is in the act of pressing the button to *publish content on the open Internet*.

@buherator It's not, actually. There's a substantial research literature on this. I suggest starting with Casey Fiesler.

Then you can fuck off into the hole you crawled out of, mansplainer.

@dsalo See, "we can't even seem to have a proper discussion about the possible solutions". Bye!

@dsalo except the Fedi didn't say no.

https://cosocial.ca/@evan/117113173208161488

@dsalo this is a 60-40 split.

@buherator The fact that you wrote this:
>The consent so many people seem to miss is in the act of pressing the button to *publish content on the open Internet*.
Means that you didn't really mean this:
>I'm not against having controls (either opt-in or opt-out)
Your first statement implies you think people have already opted in by posting. You can't have it both ways.
And this is why @dsalo isn't going to waste her time having a discussion with you.

@dsalo I have a discussion of the topic here.

https://cosocial.ca/@evan/117119648900494272

@jik Thanks for the reasonable reaction! I'm thinking about said controls as a band-aid for an already messed up situation (see the first part of my post). E.g. an opt-in system could make all historic posts followers-only by default. This wouldn't affect existing archives ofc. (which do exist whether we like it or not) and may be too much headache for users. We'd need arguments and compromises.

Calling each other names only conserves the current situation where one chunk of users is missing key features while an other is living in a false sense of privacy.

@buherator I'm not going to call you names. I am going to say you really don't get it and I have no more desire than @dsalo to waste my time discussing it with you further.
There is no "solution" to your "problem" that does not violate people's right to privacy.
This is all I have to add: https://federate.social/@jik/117122411977639321