Deleting discussions...closing discussions...deleting comments..argh

I just spent some time answering a discussion topic, and now apparently the entire discussion has been deleted.  A few others had taken the time to share some interesting thoughts, and then poof, the whole discussion was gone, meaning someone felt that all the contributors comments werent worth keeping along with their own comment. 

I realize thats just the way things work in this brave new world, but I have to vent again...because I feel its really not right to delete what other people have written without their consent or knowledge unless they have written something that violates the guidelines of the site, and even then only the admins should be able to delete said comments IMO, and with great trepidation.

Am I alone in this?  Is it ethical for an OP to delete any or all of the comments posted to a thread they started in spite of the fact that the comments and conversations posted may have been valueable to those who contributed?  I realize OP's DO have this power, I am just questioning if it is right.  I dont think it is.  Do you?

Maybe on the internet there should be a "contributors bill of rights" that ensures they will receive a copy of an entire thread that they contributed to should it become necessary to push said thread into oblivion.  I dont know.  Maybe I just need to up my dosage.

Views: 47

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, it is also a great place to store those great links that people post. Links that are lost whenever the post is deleted.
It's the intarwebs. Even though it's ludicrous, everyone does love to claim the "intellectual property" angle ...

But it's the intarwebs, not actually equatable to "raising/limiting quality of life".

Nah, it just isn't that important. Voltage signals of a machine; everything ends up in the bit bucket eventually.
That depends on who brought the "party goodies" and if they were of quality.

[...snicker, snicker...]
Well, that will certainly keep the quality of responses to a minimum, ensuring none of your "guests" have any real investment in what they are saying.

I personally am not here to "party" . I am here to learn, to connect, to challenge myself intellectually, and to hopefully inspire others to do the same, and since I work in IT, I know nothing ever is really "deleted" so I try to put some thought into my posts, even though I dont always succeed at saying clever things.

"Laughing time is ovah!" - Ranier Wolfcastle at his daughter's pyjama party.
"investment"? Are you serious? To each their own, but, this form of communicative media borders on creating palsy, not edification. It is so deficient of all the more important principles of human communication, it doesn't particularly translate, if it does at all.

The best this medium offers is a general understanding between parties; nothing more. "Investing" more than casual time in it, isn't logical.
100 years ago, the rights of a minority to vote was considered frivolous, a waste of time, not worth debating by most people.

Obviously this is not the same gravity of that event, but to compare, I think we have all gotten so used to the status quo that the idea of questioning it seems ludicrous at first.

If you decide that this medium of communication is largely frivolous, you are entitled to that opinion. My point here isnt to debate the value of the communication herein, but rather to debate the ethics of forcing everyone to hold their own communication herein in the same contempt, and regard everything they type into here as valueless, as you seem to, not worth archiving.

There is something to be said though, because the medium does not consistently erase or archive materials here, and they can be isolated to a specific community or broadcast/copied all across the globe. So its nearly impossible to really be able to count on what will happen to your information posted here, your opinions etc. My point is that control should rest with the individual and their personal posts, not the OP, not the network managers, not the admins, not the government.
Glen - did someone misunderstand one of your very sober, well reasoned, and respectful Youtube submissions again? ;^)

I agree that free speech is a double-edged sword - and a prohitbition against yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is a reasonable limitation. 'With great freedom comes great responsibility.'

This thread is a little bit off 'free speech' to me, however. Should the New York Times be forced to publish something I submit, simply to honor my 'free speech? The OP is the publisher. (S)He can 'pull' a story.
I feel your pain. If I do a really good job responding to a particular topic I feel that strongly about, I often archive it as a blog topic of my own, omitting the references to particular original topic founders. They may have deleted a particular topic because it became too embarrassing to leave it posted or they were plastered with profane messages and ad hominim or insulting, alienating attacks by some pricks who refer to themselves by aliases or worse. I've felt compelled to and pulled topics due to such base nonsense.
So, I'm hearing that "its the internet' and "who cares" and "doesnt matter", so I guess for the most part people do not invest that much in what they post. The system literally rewards those who put as little thought as possible into responses, and punishes those who put some effort into responding then? That seems backwards to me. I still dont buy the argument, that it doesnt matter. If you want to trash your own individual comments, thats fine, but if you trash mine, I will go on feeling violated, and probably avoid interacting with you on the interwebs.

IE, if A/N made a habit of arbitrarily deleting blog posts, people would probably stop posting, and certainly stop posting anything valueable or of interest beyond a link to somewhere else.

Further, if you post a lot here and make a habit of deleting people's comments you dont like, you'll get blacklisted by responders and probably not get any meaningful responses from at least the most credible members of the community.

I still think its unethical to do those things and there should be a mechanism on the internet for recourse, if for no reason than to see a general improvement in quality and effort people are willing to put into their posts and responses.
"They linger on like an old fart between the covers". My #1 vote for best expression of the day.
I'm with Prog Rock Girl on this. I invest in all discourse I take part in. I have spent hours hashing out ideas with friends, colleagues, associates, strangers in many different venues - in meetings and conversations - for the most part, unrecorded or recorded in a limited fashion.

However, my thoughts and memories don't go unrefined, my curiosity unslaked, my ideas unexpressed.

Words on the page go unread, burn up in fires, dissolve in floods, get run through shredders, end up in land fills, get recycled into newsprint and toilet paper. There isn't even any paper involved here - unless you print it out and archive it yourself.

I tend to see the deletion of threads as, often, a form of intellectual cowardice or shame of some sort, and ending of threads as information management. When you get a thread that has 600 replies - many replies to replies to replies (all generations off topic) that could be seen as 'disrespect' to everyone who addressed the original post and stayed on topic. They get lost in a sea of comments. Stopping a discussion might actually help preserve their thought - for a moment.
If the original poster leaves the Nexus (I mean really leaves - deletes their account) then all of their posts and comments disappear. It can make for interesting reading, with the responses to their comments present but not their actual coments. It's like the old Bob Newhart one-sided telephone conversations. If the original poster had blogs or forum topics, then those disappear when they do.

I think that closing a topic is not the same as deleting it. Closing it does not delete information, it just means that if people want to continue discussing it, then someone else has to post it as a new topic and maybe link to the old one.

I can't comment on upping your dosage. It might be beter than getting an ulcer.


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service