#ThoughtProvoker ๐ค
-
#ThoughtProvoker ๐ค
In daily life, if you talk to someone, you have the right to remember what was said, right?
And if you don't possess photographic memory, you have the right to take notes, keep record, maintain a diary, yes?
And no one has the right to order you to forget your memories, or under normal circumstances to destroy your notes?
So if you have a single-person #fediverse instance, it is okay then to ignore #ActivityPub Delete requests to erase your memory of online public conversations you had with others?
-
#ThoughtProvoker ๐ค
In daily life, if you talk to someone, you have the right to remember what was said, right?
And if you don't possess photographic memory, you have the right to take notes, keep record, maintain a diary, yes?
And no one has the right to order you to forget your memories, or under normal circumstances to destroy your notes?
So if you have a single-person #fediverse instance, it is okay then to ignore #ActivityPub Delete requests to erase your memory of online public conversations you had with others?
@smallcircles so personally as someone with dissociative memory issues, our answer is yes, there is a moral right there. it may still be polite to delete stuff when asked to; that's a separate question. both are important.
-
Sistema ha pubblicato questa discussione anche su Fediverso il
-
#ThoughtProvoker ๐ค
In daily life, if you talk to someone, you have the right to remember what was said, right?
And if you don't possess photographic memory, you have the right to take notes, keep record, maintain a diary, yes?
And no one has the right to order you to forget your memories, or under normal circumstances to destroy your notes?
So if you have a single-person #fediverse instance, it is okay then to ignore #ActivityPub Delete requests to erase your memory of online public conversations you had with others?
@smallcircles Erasing a Deleted post, does not erase the memory ๐คทโโ๏ธ
-
#ThoughtProvoker ๐ค
In daily life, if you talk to someone, you have the right to remember what was said, right?
And if you don't possess photographic memory, you have the right to take notes, keep record, maintain a diary, yes?
And no one has the right to order you to forget your memories, or under normal circumstances to destroy your notes?
So if you have a single-person #fediverse instance, it is okay then to ignore #ActivityPub Delete requests to erase your memory of online public conversations you had with others?
@smallcircles@social.coop thank you, glad im not alone in thinking that "other person can delete my chatlogs" is awful. i should be able to opt out, possibly with a big red "this user does not accept delete requests" notice.
-
@smallcircles Erasing a Deleted post, does not erase the memory ๐คทโโ๏ธ
@django that is a good "other" choice. The delete request is processed to add a marker to the note, as an update and reminder of the preference of the original sender. So it allows for the "politeness" aspect that @ireneista mentioned on the other reply.
https://adhd.irenes.space/@ireneista/statuses/01KR5H4ZY3CMFYV3N6R3Z6R9CA
-
#ThoughtProvoker ๐ค
In daily life, if you talk to someone, you have the right to remember what was said, right?
And if you don't possess photographic memory, you have the right to take notes, keep record, maintain a diary, yes?
And no one has the right to order you to forget your memories, or under normal circumstances to destroy your notes?
So if you have a single-person #fediverse instance, it is okay then to ignore #ActivityPub Delete requests to erase your memory of online public conversations you had with others?
@smallcircles@social.coop in the case that posts aren't visible through the instance unless you're logged into it, i think this holds. the calculus might shift a little if other people can view them, since your instance could potentially be used by others to view posts someone else wanted deleted. i don't think that's enough to make ignoring delete requests not okay, but it's a factor worth considering imo
-
#ThoughtProvoker ๐ค
In daily life, if you talk to someone, you have the right to remember what was said, right?
And if you don't possess photographic memory, you have the right to take notes, keep record, maintain a diary, yes?
And no one has the right to order you to forget your memories, or under normal circumstances to destroy your notes?
So if you have a single-person #fediverse instance, it is okay then to ignore #ActivityPub Delete requests to erase your memory of online public conversations you had with others?
@smallcircles I think it would be moral - and interesting - to make a queue to manually review delete requests.
Personally, growing up with IRC, I expect my online conversations to both be completely missed by the party I'm trying to talk to and archived forever by half the world's governments and a few assorted hobby data archivists. Deletion is not really a "thing".
-
@smallcircles@social.coop in the case that posts aren't visible through the instance unless you're logged into it, i think this holds. the calculus might shift a little if other people can view them, since your instance could potentially be used by others to view posts someone else wanted deleted. i don't think that's enough to make ignoring delete requests not okay, but it's a factor worth considering imo
@srxl yes, that is a very good point. Thanks.
-
@smallcircles so personally as someone with dissociative memory issues, our answer is yes, there is a moral right there. it may still be polite to delete stuff when asked to; that's a separate question. both are important.
@ireneista @smallcircles want to highlight in your response here how you identified a specifically moral right, which is a helpful and important progression from the terminology of unprefixed rights invoked in OP. without a framework to reconcile fundamental rights, two people may claim to have mutually contradictory "rights", which is the classic paradox that results from a framework of purely negative liberties (freedom from vs freedom to). rights frameworks (and legal systems more generally) seek to reconcile facial contradictions with a series of structured compromises between parties. if a government were legislating the fediverse, these would be decided as a matter of law
-
@ireneista @smallcircles want to highlight in your response here how you identified a specifically moral right, which is a helpful and important progression from the terminology of unprefixed rights invoked in OP. without a framework to reconcile fundamental rights, two people may claim to have mutually contradictory "rights", which is the classic paradox that results from a framework of purely negative liberties (freedom from vs freedom to). rights frameworks (and legal systems more generally) seek to reconcile facial contradictions with a series of structured compromises between parties. if a government were legislating the fediverse, these would be decided as a matter of law
@ireneista @smallcircles i'm replying not to educate irenes (who taught me much of the above in the first place) but to identify to onlookers that your invocation of the moral right here is more subtle and powerful than it may appear at first because it speaks to that very tension inherent in a system of rights we would like to create together. it's a very radical thing to propose a system of government, even more so one with guarantees of protection as described so concisely here
-
@ddr yes, good point. It was also brought up by @srxl in https://fedi.foxgirl.engineering/notes/am1gmqzb4bzr3fl1
-
@ireneista @smallcircles i'm replying not to educate irenes (who taught me much of the above in the first place) but to identify to onlookers that your invocation of the moral right here is more subtle and powerful than it may appear at first because it speaks to that very tension inherent in a system of rights we would like to create together. it's a very radical thing to propose a system of government, even more so one with guarantees of protection as described so concisely here
Great follow-up. Thank you.
-
@ireneista @smallcircles i'm replying not to educate irenes (who taught me much of the above in the first place) but to identify to onlookers that your invocation of the moral right here is more subtle and powerful than it may appear at first because it speaks to that very tension inherent in a system of rights we would like to create together. it's a very radical thing to propose a system of government, even more so one with guarantees of protection as described so concisely here
@ireneista @smallcircles i also think cryptographic systems should be discussed in these terms because while the game theoretical constructions in terms of oracles work for academic purposes, the intentionally abstract thought experiments they invoke also serve to depoliticize engineering decisions
-
#ThoughtProvoker ๐ค
In daily life, if you talk to someone, you have the right to remember what was said, right?
And if you don't possess photographic memory, you have the right to take notes, keep record, maintain a diary, yes?
And no one has the right to order you to forget your memories, or under normal circumstances to destroy your notes?
So if you have a single-person #fediverse instance, it is okay then to ignore #ActivityPub Delete requests to erase your memory of online public conversations you had with others?
@smallcircles It would be fine for you to keep a private record of *some* kind, I'd say, but you ought to honor the request to remove the post because displaying publicly what someone has requested removed from public view does have a moral dimension, IMO.
Not a clear "yes" or "no," mind you. What the post contains, who is asking, and why are all pertinent to judging the moral aspect of compliance.
-
@ireneista @smallcircles i'm replying not to educate irenes (who taught me much of the above in the first place) but to identify to onlookers that your invocation of the moral right here is more subtle and powerful than it may appear at first because it speaks to that very tension inherent in a system of rights we would like to create together. it's a very radical thing to propose a system of government, even more so one with guarantees of protection as described so concisely here
@hipsterelectron @smallcircles thank you very much. yeah, we often forget to explain all that until someone draws us out on it. it really should be said more often. ๐
-
@ireneista @smallcircles i also think cryptographic systems should be discussed in these terms because while the game theoretical constructions in terms of oracles work for academic purposes, the intentionally abstract thought experiments they invoke also serve to depoliticize engineering decisions
@ireneista @smallcircles one curious analogy to OP is the variance across US states around the legality of recording a phone call. making it illegal to record a phone call you participated in typically renders the recording inadmissible as evidence (so you can't use a recording in court). this makes certain forms of whistleblowing illegal and makes it much more difficult to litigate an employer for sexual harassment. therefore, this "two-party" law (as observed in the state of california) structurally disadvantages plaintiffs.
-
undefined oblomov@sociale.network ha condiviso questa discussione su
-
@django that is a good "other" choice. The delete request is processed to add a marker to the note, as an update and reminder of the preference of the original sender. So it allows for the "politeness" aspect that @ireneista mentioned on the other reply.
https://adhd.irenes.space/@ireneista/statuses/01KR5H4ZY3CMFYV3N6R3Z6R9CA
@smallcircles @django @ireneista
per the spec, deletion should replace the original message with a Tombstone. This allows it to exist without breaking threading (as it happens instead on Mastodon). The Tombstone could also be implemented similarly to an Edit with a private record of the original message: so external viewers would still see that a message existed, but the instance single user could still view the content when they want.
-
@ireneista @smallcircles one curious analogy to OP is the variance across US states around the legality of recording a phone call. making it illegal to record a phone call you participated in typically renders the recording inadmissible as evidence (so you can't use a recording in court). this makes certain forms of whistleblowing illegal and makes it much more difficult to litigate an employer for sexual harassment. therefore, this "two-party" law (as observed in the state of california) structurally disadvantages plaintiffs.
@ireneista @smallcircles however, in advocacy (and even in the name "two-party"), the matter of recording is not cast in terms of litigation between adversarial parties, but as if it were a more intimate discussion between two good-faith individuals who are not currently filing a lawsuit against each other. one might even go so far as to think the two-party consent law would protect you against self-incrimination by law enforcement, assuming that nobody can record you without your consent under any circumstances. this is unfortunately not how (nor why) such laws are written, because US state governments will only protect the rights of their own citizens at best, and only under duress.
-
@ireneista @smallcircles however, in advocacy (and even in the name "two-party"), the matter of recording is not cast in terms of litigation between adversarial parties, but as if it were a more intimate discussion between two good-faith individuals who are not currently filing a lawsuit against each other. one might even go so far as to think the two-party consent law would protect you against self-incrimination by law enforcement, assuming that nobody can record you without your consent under any circumstances. this is unfortunately not how (nor why) such laws are written, because US state governments will only protect the rights of their own citizens at best, and only under duress.
@ireneista @smallcircles this is also obv not intended to "educate" irenes, but to speak to another case where the legality of recording is actively used to harm (in my case, it arose while i was experiencing illegal discrimination from an employer, which i resolved by switching employers instead of litigating). i see this as complimentary to and distinct from irenes's analysisโirenes proposes the rights-based framework that protects the act of recording (this is a necessary prerequisite to any discussion), while mine instead identifies a structural disadvantage that results from the illegalization of making your own recording (which imperils the free exercise of fundamental rights).
-
#ThoughtProvoker ๐ค
In daily life, if you talk to someone, you have the right to remember what was said, right?
And if you don't possess photographic memory, you have the right to take notes, keep record, maintain a diary, yes?
And no one has the right to order you to forget your memories, or under normal circumstances to destroy your notes?
So if you have a single-person #fediverse instance, it is okay then to ignore #ActivityPub Delete requests to erase your memory of online public conversations you had with others?
@smallcircles my view is there should be no right to privacy in public, but that there can be unrelated restrictions on large-scale or institutional public data gathering, and that private conversation partners have a right to record the conversation, and share that information unless the other party requested or requests they don't
Ciao! Sembra che tu sia interessato a questa conversazione, ma non hai ancora un account.
Stanco di dover scorrere gli stessi post a ogni visita? Quando registri un account, tornerai sempre esattamente dove eri rimasto e potrai scegliere di essere avvisato delle nuove risposte (tramite email o notifica push). Potrai anche salvare segnalibri e votare i post per mostrare il tuo apprezzamento agli altri membri della comunitร .
Con il tuo contributo, questo post potrebbe essere ancora migliore ๐
Registrati Accedi