Should mass deletion of one's own posts be permitted?

[Laird]

Catching up on new posts since my last response in this thread:

@Sciborg_S_Patel:

I think that you have a strong point re mental health implications. Knowing that one can retract stuff one has written online at any time is, indeed, useful for one's sanity.

The problem though with (somewhat contrary to the previous item) "No Deletions" threads is the implication that [ETA: mass] deletions are permissable in every other thread: personally, I don't think that they should be (without a valid reason).

@Max_B:

I stipulated in the opening post that you need not agree with the reason provided for each option: those reasons were only representative, and you may have chosen each option for different (your own) reasons.

Other than that, thanks for sharing your opinion. It makes sense, although my current sense is still to try to avoid mass deletions of posts.

@Stan Woolley:

I share your views here to a large extent, and refrained from "liking" your post only because I felt it was a little too harsh. But yes, I think the criterion of "What if everybody did this?" is a good one to apply, and yes, the idea that once posted, content belongs to the community is certainly one worth considering. It is, at least, an idea that we could adopt (as implicit) on this forum.

@fls:

What I mean by you "taking this personally" is that you're saying things like (paraphrased) "How could you be proposing this just to thwart my will?!?!?!" when what's being proposed is not to thwart your will (in particular) at all - it applies (would apply) to everybody on the forum.

Re rights: fair enough, there is a legitimate argument to be made with respect to an individual's natural right to "be forgotten". On the other hand, contrasted against this is this community's "right to remember", should it choose to exercise (enforce) that right.

I'm not sure what you mean by "loaded language" in the poll. I simply tried to frame each option in the strongest terms that a proponent of that option would frame it. I think I succeeded. Maybe you don't. So be it.

I accept that you prefer that these decisions be made by individual members. Unfortunately, decisions made by individual members in these cases are often (in my view) made under circumstances of emotional turmoil/duress, and cannot be trusted as much as those of a third party (a moderation team) which is not so emotionally invested.

@Stan Woolley (2):

Sure, we're allowed a vote. I think I have indicated what mine would be. But I have not voted because, as a moderator and the initiator of the poll, I feel that I should "stay out of it" unless my vote is required to break a tie. I don't know what Ian's position is on this, as I haven't asked him and he hasn't volunteered it [though I see now that as I've drafted this post, he has explained himself].

Stan said > "Does Chris not realise that the actual government in the country he lives in (afaik)may well have propagated information that is almost certain to have cost lives, perhaps many? If not, he is surely naive. If so, does he endorse the government approach entirely, and think they should not be questioned? The government has been downplaying the use of face-masks which surely goes against the evidence elsewhere. How many lives will that cost? All we on the forum are doing, is asking questions that people should be allowed to ask.

I'm glad Stan posted this comment (by the member in question). I hadn't seen it.

“I'm not going to participate in a site where misinformation is being propagated, when that misinformation is likely to cost lives.”

This is an example of taking oneself and Psience quest, far too seriously, I'm afraid. Whilst it may be enticing to think otherwise and make a big fuss trying to align oneself with what you may regard as current scientific truth, it's become quite obvious that there's no such thing in relation to Covid 19; we're still just guessing with a varying weight of probability behind each one. 

And Psiencequest, has no importance or influence whatsoever about this question. It will be resolved in the real world by trial and error in the (science) departments of governments, while we speculate about it in cyberspace not even as a pimple on an Elephant's bum. 

EDIT : And the member below (Linda) is becoming somewhat hysterical (again)    

@fls:

What I mean by you "taking this personally" is that you're saying things like (paraphrased) "How could you be proposing this just to thwart my will?!?!?!" when what's being proposed is not to thwart your will (in particular) at all - it applies (would apply) to everybody on the forum.

I'm not saying that, even paraphrased. I don't think you are trying to "thwart my will" (I never realized before what a great word "thwart" is - all those consecutive consonants!). Nor do I think you are singling me out for will thwarting. However, your comprehension problems are also why I don't trust you.

Re rights: fair enough, there is a legitimate argument to be made with respect to an individual's natural right to "be forgotten". On the other hand, contrasted against this is this community's "right to remember", should it choose to exercise (enforce) that right.

I have no issue with a community's right to remember. I just happen to think you are barking up the wrong tree with this. Their option to remember is unaffected by this. Most people can remember a conversation, or at a bare minimum the gist of that conversation. If someone is unable to remember a conversation without recording it, there are many options available to them to achieve this.

And as I pointed out before, it is clear that nobody is actually re-reading these conversations after the fact, in order to "remember" what it was that someone said. Numerous times I have been accused of saying something I didn't, and it is me who goes back to the conversation in order to repost what I actually said. If someone else was actually using these old posts to "remember", these false accusations wouldn't be made in the first place. Deleting my posts is only going to make it easier to levy false accusations against me. I would have expected rejoicing, not complaints, so I'm somewhat puzzled by this.

I'm not sure what you mean by "loaded language" in the poll. I simply tried to frame each option in the strongest terms that a proponent of that option would frame it. I think I succeeded. Maybe you don't. So be it.

Ah, I see. I did not realize that your intention. I'm used to trying to make polls which avoid leading the subject, so I didn't think of doing it that way, which isn't as bad as I thought.

I accept that you prefer that these decisions be made by individual members. Unfortunately, decisions made by individual members in these cases are often (in my view) made under circumstances of emotional turmoil/duress, and cannot be trusted as much as those of a third party (a moderation team) which is not so emotionally invested.

Yeah. Another reason I don't trust you. You are blithely willing to insert your biased and false assessments into the picture, under circumstances where doing so is potentially harmful. It's also extremely disrespectful. Yes, I knew that already and I need to get over it. I don't know why this still bugs me. 

"I think we can all do better."
Jim Jeffries if you're too lazy to look it up.
Linda

[Laird]

I'm not saying that, even paraphrased. I don't think you are trying to "thwart my will" (I never realized before what a great word "thwart" is - all those consecutive consonants!). Nor do I think you are singling me out for will thwarting. However, your comprehension problems are also why I don't trust you.

There's no problem with my comprehension when you write comments like this:

[T]o say that you are not going to respect my decision, in favor of the respect the community (which apparently includes everyone but me) is owed, says that the members of the community can demand respect, while I can not.

It's all about "you", "your" decision, the respect "you" deserve, and "your" (unique) exclusion from this community. If you didn't mean that to come across as personally affronted, and feeling personally targetted, then you need to work on your powers of expression.

[The community's] option to remember is unaffected by this.

The idea that deleting your posts has no affect on readers' ability to remember them is obviously a total load of nonsense. What do you hope to achieve by asserting such obvious falsehoods?

You are blithely willing to insert your biased and false assessments into the picture

Since you are so obviously willing to misrepresent yourself (see above), I am far from convinced that my own assessments of your actions and intent are "false", let alone "biased". I think I've called it pretty clearly.

There's no problem with my comprehension when you write comments like this:


It's all about "you", "your" decision, the respect "you" deserve, and "your" (unique) exclusion from this community. If you didn't mean that to come across as personally affronted, and feeling personally targetted, then you need to work on your powers of expression.

Would it help if I said it like this?

"Because to say that you are not going to respect an individual's (me, in this case) decision, in favor of the respect the community (which apparently includes everyone but the individual (me, in this case)) is owed, says that the members of the community can demand respect, while the individual (me, in this case) can not."

Because I'm not arguing this for myself, other than, having gone through the experience, I have a better understanding (than I did before) of the need. I don't really see myself doing so again, although I don't know if something might happen to change the circumstances. And I didn't realize it would bother people, so that weighs more heavily, now. I'm arguing this for anyone else who may discover the need of it in the future. And it's why I made reference to fundamental rights in my first post. I regard everyone as having fundamental rights, not just myself.

Yes, I brought up the idea, early on, that this was uniquely directed at me. Because I didn't want it spoiled for everyone else if it was. But you convinced me it wasn't, especially because it became clear that you were equally willing to treat Chris badly.

The idea that deleting your posts has no affect on readers' ability to remember them is obviously a total load of nonsense. What do you hope to achieve by asserting such obvious falsehoods?

That is always one of your most amusing tricks. You take a single line out of a paragraph - a paragraph which goes on to explain very specifically why it obviously isn't a total load of nonsense - and pretend that by taking it out of context, I offered no explanation as to why I regarded it as true.

Now think about this - how much easier would it be for you to get away with this kind of garbage, if the original wasn't there anymore? You should be happy about the possibility. It would leave you free to be as defamatory as you like. 

Since you are so obviously willing to misrepresent yourself (see above), I am far from convinced that my own assessments of your actions and intent are "false", let alone "biased". I think I've called it pretty clearly.

Of course you do. Hence my distrust.

Linda

[Ninshub]

Well noted Max. Maybe you should vote in the poll (option 2) just to make sure your vote gets counted.

Laird explained earlier in the thread why this poll idea came out and prompted it.

[Laird]

Would it help if I said it like this?

No, because it would be clear that you were rewriting the emphasis you originally placed upon your own unique exclusion from the community into the "general" individual's unique exclusion from the community - which clearly is nonsensical, because you can't have a "general unique" exclusion.

In other words, you'd just be playing semantic games to avoid acknowledging your obvious original meaning: that you thought we were tailoring our response to you in particular.

This is the sort of disingenuous crap from you that other members rightly get sick of.

That is always one of your most amusing tricks. You take a single line out of a paragraph

Oh, please. What followed was just as disingenuous as the above, and didn't even need to be quoted. It's like if you were to say, "Hey, listen: black is white. Now, my reasoning is...". Would anybody bother to quote that reasoning? All that needs to be quoted is the bullshit assertion that "black is white".

[Laird]

I also agree with Linda, why has this been focused on now...? when IIRC a member left a year or two ago, they deleted all their posts throughout the whole site, moderators ruled that was fine

In fact, moderators (if I recall correctly) did express concern about this privately, but didn't see fit to take any action publicly. It was - as I've already indicated in this thread - only when these sort of actions reached a tipping point (mass deletions in three threads in recent weeks) that we went public with our concerns.