Date   

moderated Re: delete old messages

 

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 11:03 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
Being able to provide one, two, or 100 examples where it was practical obviously does not prove its practical in general.
 
But it does show that it is not "hopelessly impractical" in general.
That's not what you need to show. It is "hopelessly impractical" in the sense that there will always be cases where it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement. To make a promise in the TOU, that promise must be possible to uphold in ALL cases. Not just the few that you pull out of a hat. This has zero to do with my not liking your examples (in fact, they were TLDR, because it doesn't even matter what they are).

I don't need to show that it's "hopelessly impractical" in all cases. I only need to show that there will always be cases, no matter how many or few, where it would be hopelessly impractical to implement ("user leaves, requests deletion of all posts 10 years later"; etc.).
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: delete old messages

 

J,



Being able to provide one, two, or 100 examples where it was practical obviously does not prove its practical in general.

But it does show that it is not "hopelessly impractical" in general.


The rest (“yahoo did not find it impractical”) is either imagination or hearsay. 

It is hearsay, but I've no reason to doubt the members of Y!GMF who reported receiving such demands, or those who reported having such intercession on their own behalf.

There’s no reason to try to duplicate here policies that exist in yahoo just because they exist there.

There's also no reason to reject a good policy just because you don't like the cited example of its use in practice.

Shal


moderated Re: delete old messages

 

Shal,
 
Being able to provide one, two, or 100 examples where it was practical obviously does not prove its practical in general. The rest (“yahoo did not find it impractical”) is either imagination or hearsay. 

There’s no reason to try to duplicate here policies that exist in yahoo just because they exist there.



On Sep 25, 2019, at 10:24 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

J,


Disagree. Are you saying you can provide an example showing it's practical?

I simply said that the Yahoo TOS (pre-Verizon, anyway) provides example text that limits the license granted to the service. That limitation means that if the member (or Yahoo) removes their content then Yahoo would no longer have the right to display it. Yahoo treated that language as requiring that members be able to remove their content.

You'd have to be able to guarantee users that at any point in time, they could request their content be removed from any and all groups, regardless of whether they'd left any or all of those groups or even groups.io as a whole, whether a week, a month, or a decade later. I think that's pretty clearly impractical.

Yahoo did not find it to be impractical. I know of cases where Customer Care intervened to require that members be allowed back into groups in order to delete their messages, and also cases where Customer Care did the deletion on behalf of the former member if the group managers refused or were unresponsive.
Shal


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: delete old messages

 

J,


Disagree. Are you saying you can provide an example showing it's practical?

I simply said that the Yahoo TOS (pre-Verizon, anyway) provides example text that limits the license granted to the service. That limitation means that if the member (or Yahoo) removes their content then Yahoo would no longer have the right to display it. Yahoo treated that language as requiring that members be able to remove their content.

You'd have to be able to guarantee users that at any point in time, they could request their content be removed from any and all groups, regardless of whether they'd left any or all of those groups or even groups.io as a whole, whether a week, a month, or a decade later. I think that's pretty clearly impractical.

Yahoo did not find it to be impractical. I know of cases where Customer Care intervened to require that members be allowed back into groups in order to delete their messages, and also cases where Customer Care did the deletion on behalf of the former member if the group managers refused or were unresponsive.
Shal


moderated Re: change verbiage on log entry for forbidden new tag

Bruce Bowman
 

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 11:16 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
p.s. In addition to changing the verbiage, I think the attempted message should be recorded somewhere, possibly in the pending queue. Instead, it's just completely lost and i have no idea what this group member was trying to post.
Emails that violate hashtag rules (or perhaps other restrictions) are retained as Drafts...just as if they were composed online. The subscriber is sent an email with a link to that draft. They must subsequently log in to correct the problem and resubmit. Not denying that the message is inaccessible to group Owner/Moderators, but it seems to me that the process functions pretty well.

As for whether the log entry should be reworded, I'm ambivalent.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: delete old messages

 

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 09:02 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
A worked example demonstrates that an idea is not "hopelessly impractical".
Disagree. Are you saying you can provide an example showing it's practical? That's not logical. Or are you saying I should provide an example to show it's not practical? Not necessary. You'd have to be able to guarantee users that at any point in time, they could request their content be removed from any and all groups, regardless of whether they'd left any or all of those groups or even groups.io as a whole, whether a week, a month, or a decade later. I think that's pretty clearly impractical.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: delete old messages

 

J,

If it’s so ludicrous, then why do you think Mark hasn’t changed the
TOU yet?
He may not want to. Or he may not have decided to do it yet.

Neither of those suggests that it is "hopelessly impractical" to do.

What Y!G does, or attempts to do (we don’t know whether successfully
or unsuccessfully), is irrelevant IMHO.
A worked example demonstrates that an idea is not "hopelessly impractical".

Shal


moderated Re: change verbiage on log entry for forbidden new tag

 

It was an intended hashtag. The subject was included in the log entry. And it did not bounce.

On Sep 25, 2019, at 8:52 AM, Drew <pubx1@af2z.net> wrote:

She may not have intended to use/create a hashtag at all but merely included a "#" character in some other context. So, any revised warning message should probably address that possibility (if it doesn't already) because the subscriber may not even know what a hashtag is.

BTW, the hashtag permission for the group can be set so that such messages are not bounced:

"Messages from subscribers can only be tagged with existing hashtags, new hashtags will be removed."

However, be aware- that could alter the meaning of the subscribers' subject lines in cases where they included a # character in some non-hashtag context.


Drew



On 09/25/19 11:16, J_Catlady wrote:
p.s. In addition to changing the verbiage, I think the attempted message should be recorded somewhere, possibly in the pending queue. Instead, it's just completely lost and i have no idea what this group member was trying to post. Unfortunately she's a very naive user and I have been trying to get her to post for months, but she's been afraid of the system. Now I fear she will be doubly so. I would like to get a copy of the text the system sent her asking her to change the subject of the message, so that we can possibly adjust that as well.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:14 AM J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady=gmail.com@groups.io <mailto:gmail.com@groups.io>> wrote:
I just found the following log entry in the group activity log and
had no idea what it meant:
"[xyz member] sent message "[message subject]" with a new tag, has
been asked to update subject via email"
This is incomprehensible! I emailed the member to find out what
happened, but in the meantime, I figured out that what this entry is
actually trying to say is (1) the member sent a message via email,
(2) the message subject had a new hashtag, and (3), because members
are not allowed create new hashtags in our group, the member was
therefore asked to change the message subject. However, I thought,
upon reading the entry, that the member was "asked to (update the
subject via email)." Etc. The log entry does not parse correctly by
any conceivable means.
Can this entry be changed to read something like
"[xyz member] sent message [message subject] via email, has been
asked to remove the new tag and resend"
(or other, possibly better, suggestions)?
I literally could not parse the entry for about 10 minutes.
-- J
/Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy
ones./
/My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human
together. - Desmond Tutu/
--
J
/Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones./
/My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu/



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: change verbiage on log entry for forbidden new tag

Drew
 

She may not have intended to use/create a hashtag at all but merely included a "#" character in some other context. So, any revised warning message should probably address that possibility (if it doesn't already) because the subscriber may not even know what a hashtag is.

BTW, the hashtag permission for the group can be set so that such messages are not bounced:

"Messages from subscribers can only be tagged with existing hashtags, new hashtags will be removed."

However, be aware- that could alter the meaning of the subscribers' subject lines in cases where they included a # character in some non-hashtag context.


Drew

On 09/25/19 11:16, J_Catlady wrote:
p.s. In addition to changing the verbiage, I think the attempted message should be recorded somewhere, possibly in the pending queue. Instead, it's just completely lost and i have no idea what this group member was trying to post. Unfortunately she's a very naive user and I have been trying to get her to post for months, but she's been afraid of the system. Now I fear she will be doubly so. I would like to get a copy of the text the system sent her asking her to change the subject of the message, so that we can possibly adjust that as well.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:14 AM J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady=gmail.com@groups.io <mailto:gmail.com@groups.io>> wrote:
I just found the following log entry in the group activity log and
had no idea what it meant:
"[xyz member] sent message "[message subject]" with a new tag, has
been asked to update subject via email"
This is incomprehensible! I emailed the member to find out what
happened, but in the meantime, I figured out that what this entry is
actually trying to say is (1) the member sent a message via email,
(2) the message subject had a new hashtag, and (3), because members
are not allowed create new hashtags in our group, the member was
therefore asked to change the message subject. However, I thought,
upon reading the entry, that the member was "asked to (update the
subject via email)." Etc. The log entry does not parse correctly by
any conceivable means.
Can this entry be changed to read something like
"[xyz member] sent message [message subject] via email, has been
asked to remove the new tag and resend"
(or other, possibly better, suggestions)?
I literally could not parse the entry for about 10 minutes.
--
J
/Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy
ones./
/My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human
together. - Desmond Tutu/
--
J
/Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones./
/My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu/


moderated Re: delete old messages

 

Shal,
If it’s so ludicrous, then why do you think Mark hasn’t changed the TOU yet?
What Y!G does, or attempts to do (we don’t know whether successfully or unsuccessfully), is irrelevant IMHO.

On Sep 25, 2019, at 8:28 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

J,

And that's where I say, "Changing the TOU to explicitly allow message
deletion at the request of members would be hopelessly impractical.")
That's a ludicrous answer.

a) Yahoo Groups already had language limiting the license granted to the service. Mark may not want that exact language, but the TOU has already been changed at least once, so there clearly is a practical means for editing it.

b) A practical mechanism for message deletion already exists. A practical mechanism for finding all messages by this member already exists. All that is required for a bulk feature is to marry those two capabilities. Perhaps using a UI similar to the checkboxes present on the /topics-test page.

c) Practicality is Mark's job.

Granted that (b) doesn't cover quotes of the subject member appearing in other members' messages, nor does it cover subject messages stored in other members' email interfaces. But I never asked for either of those things.

Shal


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: delete old messages

 

J,

And that's where I say, "Changing the TOU to explicitly allow message
deletion at the request of members would be hopelessly impractical.")
That's a ludicrous answer.

a) Yahoo Groups already had language limiting the license granted to the service. Mark may not want that exact language, but the TOU has already been changed at least once, so there clearly is a practical means for editing it.

b) A practical mechanism for message deletion already exists. A practical mechanism for finding all messages by this member already exists. All that is required for a bulk feature is to marry those two capabilities. Perhaps using a UI similar to the checkboxes present on the /topics-test page.

c) Practicality is Mark's job.

Granted that (b) doesn't cover quotes of the subject member appearing in other members' messages, nor does it cover subject messages stored in other members' email interfaces. But I never asked for either of those things.

Shal


moderated Re: change verbiage on log entry for forbidden new tag

 

p.s. In addition to changing the verbiage, I think the attempted message should be recorded somewhere, possibly in the pending queue. Instead, it's just completely lost and i have no idea what this group member was trying to post. Unfortunately she's a very naive user and I have been trying to get her to post for months, but she's been afraid of the system. Now I fear she will be doubly so. I would like to get a copy of the text the system sent her asking her to change the subject of the message, so that we can possibly adjust that as well.


On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:14 AM J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
I just found the following log entry in the group activity log and had no idea what it meant:

"[xyz member] sent message "[message subject]" with a new tag, has been asked to update subject via email"

This is incomprehensible! I emailed the member to find out what happened, but in the meantime, I figured out that what this entry is actually trying to say is (1) the member sent a message via email, (2) the message subject had a new hashtag, and (3), because members are not allowed create new hashtags in our group, the member was therefore asked to change the message subject. However, I thought, upon reading the entry, that the member was "asked to (update the subject via email)." Etc. The log entry does not parse correctly by any conceivable means.

Can this entry be changed to read something like
"[xyz member] sent message [message subject] via email, has been asked to remove the new tag and resend"

(or other, possibly better, suggestions)?

I literally could not parse the entry for about 10 minutes.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated change verbiage on log entry for forbidden new tag

 

I just found the following log entry in the group activity log and had no idea what it meant:

"[xyz member] sent message "[message subject]" with a new tag, has been asked to update subject via email"

This is incomprehensible! I emailed the member to find out what happened, but in the meantime, I figured out that what this entry is actually trying to say is (1) the member sent a message via email, (2) the message subject had a new hashtag, and (3), because members are not allowed create new hashtags in our group, the member was therefore asked to change the message subject. However, I thought, upon reading the entry, that the member was "asked to (update the subject via email)." Etc. The log entry does not parse correctly by any conceivable means.

Can this entry be changed to read something like
"[xyz member] sent message [message subject] via email, has been asked to remove the new tag and resend"

(or other, possibly better, suggestions)?

I literally could not parse the entry for about 10 minutes.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: delete old messages

 

(This is the point where Shal says: "That's why I think the TOU should be changed so that the permission is not granted in perpetuity." And that's where I say, "Changing the TOU to explicitly allow message deletion at the request of members would be hopelessly impractical.")
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: delete old messages

 

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 04:00 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
the right to be forgotten relates to data about a person, not things they have posted on Groups.io or other social media.
Exactly. Not to mention that users explicitly grant groups.io the right to post their content forever. Coming from the other side of the discussion, this is why - and we've been through this argument/discussion many times before - I think group owners should be allowed to disable message deletion by members. IANAL but it's easy reading to see that Groups.io is under no legal obligation to delete user content, whether the user ask for the deletion or not, whether they've left a group or not, or under any other circumstances. Groups.io would be under legal obligation to remove personal information *about* users posted by *other* users, if the posted-about user requests the deletion.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: delete old messages

Dave Sergeant
 

And of course all those posts are in countless email inboxes and web
mail of which groups.io and moderators have no control. It is totally
impossible.

Dave

On 25 Sep 2019 at 4:00, Chris Jones via Groups.Io wrote:

Now (like Mark) IANAL, and the material in the link is a News Bulletin
not "Qualified Legal Opinion", but taken at face value the right to be
forgotten relates to data about a person, not things they have posted on
Groups.io or other social media. As such they would have no right to
assume or expect that such material can or will be deleted on request,
and of course while material they have originated might be deleted,
where that material is quoted by others those quotations and their
attribution will remain firmly in place.

As recently mentioned on the GMF subscribers can delete their own posts
unhindered, so I would suggest that anyone wishing to have their posts
deleted should be encouraged to set about doing it themselves. As far as
I can see there is no reason for believing that a group owner or
moderator must trawl through message archives removing posts submitted
by any named individual just because they ask for it to be done.

http://davesergeant.com


moderated Re: delete old messages

Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 03:26 AM, Ken Schweizer included this link:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208
Now (like Mark) IANAL, and the material in the link is a News Bulletin not "Qualified Legal Opinion", but taken at face value the right to be forgotten relates to data about a person, not things they have posted on Groups.io or other social media. As such they would have no right to assume or expect that such material can or will be deleted on request, and of course while material they have originated might be deleted, where that material is quoted by others those quotations and their attribution will remain firmly in place.

As recently mentioned on the GMF subscribers can delete their own posts unhindered, so I would suggest that anyone wishing to have their posts deleted should be encouraged to set about doing it themselves. As far as I can see there is no reason for believing that a group owner or moderator must trawl through message archives removing posts submitted by any named individual just because they ask for it to be done. 

I see no reason for an owner or moderator to make a rod for their own back.

Chris


moderated Re: delete old messages

Ken Schweizer
 

It appears that the EU agrees with you although I would have preferred they hadn't sided with Google.


https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208

 

Ken

 

2Ch 7:14 “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
God

 

From: main@beta.groups.io [mailto:main@beta.groups.io] On Behalf Of Mark Fletcher
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 4:49 PM
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] delete old messages

 

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 2:36 PM Frances <frances@...> wrote:

When there is a turnover of a Board, for example, it would be useful to delete chitchat from previous members.

We don't currently have this function.

 

 

I have been wondering too about the GDPR - "The GDPR is the most comprehensive EU data privacy law in decades, and went into effect on May 25, 2018." I can export my account. Couldn't that be linked to a delete function?

This was a scenario I discussed with my GDPR lawyers back when I was going through this. From what I remember, it was basically that the law was a bit unclear but that my lawyers interpreted it as I did not have to delete someone's messages in a group when they deleted their account. It's impractical to be able to remove all traces of someone who has participated in a discussion group.

 

IANAL and all that...

 

Mark


moderated Re: delete old messages

 

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 2:36 PM Frances <frances@...> wrote:
When there is a turnover of a Board, for example, it would be useful to delete chitchat from previous members.

We don't currently have this function.

 
I have been wondering too about the GDPR - "The GDPR is the most comprehensive EU data privacy law in decades, and went into effect on May 25, 2018." I can export my account. Couldn't that be linked to a delete function?

This was a scenario I discussed with my GDPR lawyers back when I was going through this. From what I remember, it was basically that the law was a bit unclear but that my lawyers interpreted it as I did not have to delete someone's messages in a group when they deleted their account. It's impractical to be able to remove all traces of someone who has participated in a discussion group.

IANAL and all that...

Mark


moderated Re: delete old messages

Frances
 

When there is a turnover of a Board, for example, it would be useful to delete chitchat from previous members.

I have been wondering too about the GDPR - "The GDPR is the most comprehensive EU data privacy law in decades, and went into effect on May 25, 2018." I can export my account. Couldn't that be linked to a delete function?
Or perhaps Delete My Account could do that.
https://groups.io/static/compliance

Frances

6221 - 6240 of 28342