Skip to main content

View Diary: Is posting cached links to unpublished/deleted diaries acceptable behavior at Daily Kos? (292 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, it's not being "able to take it back." (11+ / 0-)

    "Deleting and unpublishing content" does not mean "taking it back"; it only means that anyone who tries to load the content from the server in the future will not be able to do so.

    Like any action taken by humans, it is subject to the laws of the space-time continuum; it cannot affect actions taken in the past.

    The person who originally published the content does not have the ability to go around to every single computer that loaded and cached/saved the content before it was deleted/unpublished, and delete it from the computer's memory.

    Once someone clicks the button to publish something to a public webpage, they no longer have the power to completely delete it from the world. That's a basic fact.

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:37:41 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  It might mean "WISHING I could take it back" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fcvaguy, ballerina X, kurt

      but that, imo, means that an apology is in order from the poster, not that we all have to believe it was never said.

      "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

      by Inland on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:40:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm clear on the "physics" of it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ray Pensador

      It's the ethics and/or etiquette of, in a sense, republishing the content on this site, after it was intentionally removed by the diarist, against his/her wishes, that I'm talking about.

      Apparently many feel it's okay to seek out a diary of someone they don't like, that's been unpublished for any number of reasons, even with no deceptive intent on the part of the diarist, and use a cached link of the diary to blindside the diarist in an unrelated thread.

      Maybe there ought to be a reminder that, once published, and even if removed from the site within 15 minutes of originally posting, a person is allowed to beat you over the head with it, on site,  in the future.




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:19:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, maybe the topics of ethics and etiquette (0+ / 0-)

        should be discussed here more often.

      •  Ethics and Etiquette (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hey338Too, 6412093, kurt, mskitty, Wee Mama
        It's the ethics and/or etiquette of, in a sense, republishing the content on this site, after it was intentionally removed by the diarist, against his/her wishes, that I'm talking about.
        We do that to people all the friggin' time here. Think about the last time you saw a post about a Republican posting something offensive on Twitter or Facebook... if the person posting here is smart, they make sure to put up a screen capture, in case the Republican in question tries to delete the post to cover their tracks.

        So what is it that makes that practice acceptable, while republishing material that Mr. Pensador made public and then tried to remove is not acceptable? Both cases involve the republishing of content against the wishes of the original writer, who intentionally removed it from the internet.

        The only difference is that Mr. Pensador published the material he regretted publishing and tried to remove to this site, which he posts on regularly, rather than publishing it elsewhere.

        I can see how there might be an etiquette issue involved with that, given that every site community has its own standards of etiquette.

        But I'm having a really difficult time seeing how the fact that he published and then tried to remove it here rather than somewhere else makes any kind of difference ethically. It seems to me that from an ethical standpoint, it's an either/or choice—either one is obligated to respect all authors' wishes in not republishing material they regret posting and want to remove, or one isn't obligated to respect authors' wishes at all and once they've made something public, they've made it fair game.

        So if this is really just another discussion about site etiquette, then this seems to me like a massive overreaction on Mr. Pensador's part. It seems to me that this fuss over etiquette couldn't but become another ridiculous piefight where Mr. Pensador's supporters and detractors make an Olympic sport out of which side has violated what they view as site etiquette more than the other side.

        Finally, given the physics of the situation, it seems to me that the best solution for everyone going forward is to give a bit more consideration to the permanence of materials posted to the internet—particularly for those who know that they are often inclined to come back later, regret what they wrote, and attempt to remove it.

        The best way to ensure that one will never be "beat[en] over the head" with content they regret is to never publish content they'll regret in the first place.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:42:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You got quiet a few things wrong. First, I didn't (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DeadHead

          "attempt" to unpublish the diary in question, I actually did using the available feature. Second there is nothing wrong with the content of the diary, but even so, it seems to me I owe no explanation to anyone as to why I decided to unpublish it. Third, the ethical question applies, as noted by DeadHead... Is it okay to post a cached link to an unpublish or deleted diary in a totalky unrelated comment thread?

          What is your answer to that? That is the topic of this diary.

          •  I think you missed my point. (4+ / 0-)
            First, I didn't "attempt" to unpublish the diary in question, I actually did using the available feature.
            If you're going to engage in this level of semantic nitpicking, please do actually read what I wrote first—because I didn't make any specification about your trying to remove the material just from this site. I wrote that you attempted to remove the material, period. You may have successfully unpublished it from this site so that this site would no longer serve said material, but you were unsuccessful in removing it from the various other services that cache and store content posted to the internet. Ergo, it was an attempt.
            Second there is nothing wrong with the content of the diary, but even so, it seems to me I owe no explanation to anyone as to why I decided to unpublish it.
            Of course not. When did I imply that you owed some kind of explanation as to your decision? The material this site serves up under your account is something the site's administrators have granted you control over; you're free to publish and unpublish material to your account here to your heart's content.

            But that does not give you the right to demand that if you decide to remove material you've made available to the public, everyone who may have viewed, cached, or saved that material while it was public also delete their copy of that material. You gave up the right to completely control that material when you clicked "Publish."

            Third, the ethical question applies, as noted by DeadHead... Is it okay to post a cached link to an unpublish or deleted diary in a totalky unrelated comment thread?
            Sure, it applies—but if it's an ethical question, it's a question with universal application. It can't be specific to material posted on this site. So if this is a question of ethics, then the question becomes whether it is ever ethical to cache and republish material from an author who has deleted the original version of that material and made it clear that he or she does not want said material republished.

            You could certainly come down on the side that says that it's never ethical to do so—but then, you would be accepting that you too would be bound by this ethical rule. If one of your own posts contained quotations or statements by someone that they later expressed regret over and tried to remove, you would be ethically bound to remove those quotations or statements from your posts.

            But if your question is just about whether it's acceptable on this site, then you've left the realm of ethics and entered the realm of etiquette.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 08:27:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I would argue that the one using semantic games (0+ / 0-)

              is you... Let me prove it:

              But that does not give you the right to demand that if you decide to remove material you've made available to the public, everyone who may have viewed, cached, or saved that material while it was public also delete their copy of that material. You gave up the right to completely control that material when you clicked "Publish."
              That is not only untrue and a total mischaracterization, but bizarrely so.

              Nowhere am I demanding that people delete copies of the "material."

              Again, my only question is: If a user publishes a diary, and then within minutes decides to unpublish it or delete it, and somehow another user gets a cached copy of the diary and then posts a link to it in a totally unrelated comment thread without any explanation, if that shows good faith, manners, and etiquette, not to mention following site guidelines?

              So I call your "argument' a straw man, and like all such constructions, the builder usually goes on to attack it.  But the bizarre thing is that it is so transparent, that I don't know why you attempt it.

              The rest of your post is more of the same... And yes, I read it.  Either way, I'm getting off the circular logical argument wheel now...

              •  Okay, fair enough. (4+ / 0-)
                That is not only untrue and a total mischaracterization, but bizarrely so.

                Nowhere am I demanding that people delete copies of the "material."

                Okay, I'll grant that point. You're not demanding that people delete copies of that post. You're just demanding that everyone on this site pretend that you never wrote and published it, such that any other copies or caches of the post that are still out there may as well be deleted.

                I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes, but it is a distinction.

                If a user publishes a diary, and then within minutes decides to unpublish it or delete it, and somehow another user gets a cached copy of the diary and then posts a link to it in a totally unrelated comment thread without any explanation, if that shows good faith, manners, and etiquette, not to mention following site guidelines?
                That depends on the situation and the context. In this case, I think I'd agree that reposting said material doesn't "show good faith, manners, and etiquette"—but I don't think it was a particularly egregious offense either, and certainly nothing worth starting a meta pie-fight over.

                I think it falls into the category of the things people on this site do to intentionally needle one another from time to time, a category of actions that also includes things like choosing words and phrases that one knows are going to irritate, annoy, or piss off those who disagree with them, or writing intentionally vague accusations about other site users that can color others' opinions of those users while still maintaining plausible deniability that one ever made explicit accusations in the first place. I don't think you can maintain with a straight face that you're innocent of those actions.

                In all of those cases, there are two sets of choices being made. The first choice is made by the person who initially posts the material he or she knows is going to needle other users, to post the material rather than choosing words, phrases, or content that would be less likely to offend others and start pie-fights. The second choice is made by the person who chooses to allow the initial poster to manipulate them, responding in kind and reacting emotionally rather than choosing to rise above the petty emotional manipulations of others.

                Let me explain this with another metaphor, one that directly implicates etiquette. Suppose, in a few weeks, you find yourself at Thanksgiving dinner with members of your extended family whom you know to be Tea Party members, who know you to be strongly left-wing. If your Tea Party uncle, in the course of Thanksgiving dinner conversation, makes some veiled reference to your left-wing views that you find offensive, that would definitely be a breach of etiquette, no?

                But it would be no less a breach of etiquette—and, most would agree, a reaction that increases rather than defuses the drama of the situation and the likelihood of a family rupture—if, as a result of said veiled reference, you stand up from the table, throw your napkin and fork down on your plate, and start loudly arguing with him. If you allow the veiled reference to pass over you instead, people will have a lower opinion of your Tea Party uncle, and think more of you for not letting it get to you.

                That seems to me to be an analogy for what's happening here.

                Moreover, I would be remiss if I failed to continue to mention that you could have prevented the whole kerfluffle by not publishing the now-deleted post in the first place. By publishing it, you forfeited the right to completely control its distribution and continued existence.

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:11:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, we do that all the time here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ray Pensador

          to Republicans who aren't posting on Daily Kos.

          That's to be expected on a Democratic blog.

          Doing it to fellow kossacks, however, is what I find problematic.

          The only legitimate reason I can see for doing it would be to specifically refute a diarist who was being dishonest about either having posted the diary in the first place, or trying to pull some other kind of "fast one" over on the community.

          That did not occur in this instance. The link was posted in an unrelated diary for no apparent reason other than to antagonize the diarist, by a person who has long given the impression he considers the diarist to be somewhat of a nuisance.

          When I discovered who it was, I wasn't surprised in the least.

          It's especially noteworthy to me because I saw it happen on one or two other occasions to this same diarist.

          So I understand why this latest occurrence caused Ray to respond as he did.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:52:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Okay, "problematic," sure. (3+ / 0-)
            Doing it to fellow kossacks, however, is what I find problematic.
            Was it a breach of site etiquette, in being an intentional attempt to needle Mr. Pensador? I find it hard to dispute that.

            However, as I write above, it isn't alone in the category of "dickish things people do to needle each other around here," sharing that category with other actions such as choosing words and phrases that one knows are going to irritate, annoy, or piss off those who disagree with them, or writing intentionally vague accusations about other site users that can color others' opinions of those users while still maintaining plausible deniability that one ever made explicit accusations in the first place.

            If you accept my categorization—and I'm not saying you have to—then it's hard to argue that Mr. Pensador hasn't given as good as he's gotten in this regard. In terms of site etiquette, I find him a rather unsympathetic defendant.

            However, I don't think it's possible to suggest that this particular instance in which someone did not respect Mr. Pensador's desire to delete that post was a breach of ethics, while instances in which we do not respect the desires of other authors to delete their own work on other sites are not similarly so, without some kind of additional ethical framework.

            That framework would need to be a larger set of criteria with universal aspirations that delineates some kind of boundary between authors whose wishes we do have to respect, and authors whose wishes we don't. Perhaps that boundary could be related to the offensiveness of the content itself, or the likelihood that said content would change people's opinion about the author, or a larger pattern of good faith by the author.

            But absent that boundary—a boundary which, I remind you, cannot be site-specific and must have universal intent—there's no basis for saying that posting cached versions of Mr. Pensador's deleted diaries crosses an ethical line, while posting screencaps of deleted offensive tweets by right-wingers does not.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:28:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site