moderated disable members deleting posts #suggestion


 

Mark,

Members have discovered locking and moderation subversion by deleting a post. I realize (I think?) that your position is that members have some sort of legal right to delete their posts, but I'm not sure about that. (They can't delete posts in some other forums, notably the news outlets and craigslist, and some others I know of.) Their emails are still around and are not being deleted. I would prefer it if in a group where editing posts is disabled, deletion could also be disabled. There's not much difference, to my mind. If we/you can prevent  members from editing their copyrighted creations, we should be able to stop them from deleting them as well.

I didn't mind this lack so much until I became acutely aware of the hole created by deletion, through which both moderation and locking can be undone. And it's precisely in a locked or moderated thread where someone may wish to delete their post.

I hope you will give this further consideration.

Thanks.

--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Duane
 

If there were a way to prevent deletion of the entire post (which I disagree with), then I think it should also be mandatory that they be able to delete their content from it by editing. That would mean that Delete and Edit would be mutually exclusive, so you'd have to decide which is more important.

As an aside, can a post be deleted by the poster if the thread is locked? I haven't had a chance to test this, but it would make sense to me that a locked thread should be just that - locked - and no changes could be made except by a moderator. In that case, the poster could contact a moderator and ask that the content be removed, but you could leave the post in place with an explanation.

Duane


 

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 09:16 am, Duane wrote:
If there were a way to prevent deletion of the entire post (which I disagree with), then I think it should also be mandatory that they be able to delete their content from it by editing
Based on what? The more I think about this, the more I think there's not even a legal grounds for allowing people to remove or edit their posts. First, they give groups.io (non-exclusive) rights the moment they publish their message. Second, their message is often duplicated in the replies of others, and those can't be removed by the person whose post is quoted. So on what basis should people be allowed to remove their posts?
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

J,

Members have discovered locking and moderation subversion by deleting
a post. I realize (I think?) that your position is that members have
some sort of legal right to delete their posts, but I'm not sure
about that.
I think it is more of a moral right.

I would prefer that Groups.io follow Yahoo Groups' lead on this issue, and claim only a limited license to use the members' content - specifically one that expires when the member decides to withdraw their content.

In that way the member's right to delete their own contributions would be established in the TOS.

Shal

--
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


 

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 09:16 am, Duane wrote:
can a post be deleted by the poster if the thread is locked
Yes.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 09:50 am, Shal Farley wrote:
I think it is more of a moral right.
But it doesn't really exist. The post may be incorporation by quotation into a reply, and then it's there for good. What real good does it do to allow deletion of the post itself?

I also disagree with the "moral right." There's no moral right to take back the sent email. Etc.

Truthfully, if this hole vis-a-vis locking and moderation could be fixed, I would not be arguing so strongly about this. But it's now disruptive on several fronts when someone deletes a post.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

I also think a responsible moderator will delete someone's post upon request, if the request makes sense. Today someone deleted their post in my group within a contentious conversation that people had already commented on (and which I had already put under moderation), and it caused a complete disconnect in the conversation. I had to go in and do damage control, but discovered that thankfully, the person responding to them had incorporated the deleted post into their reply. It was still a weird situation. And of course, now that thread can't be moderated. It's lost.
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 09:51 am, J_Catlady wrote:
Yes.
Backtracking on that a bit: I'm not sure, since I only tested it as a mod. I would have to go into another account to test whether a non-mod could delete, but I suspect the answer is still yes. Have no time now to test this.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Duane
 

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 09:38 am, J_Catlady wrote:


On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 09:16 am, Duane wrote:


If there were a way to prevent deletion of the entire post (which I
disagree with), then I think it should also be mandatory that they be able
to delete their content from it by editing
Based on what?
I based it on the section "User Content Transmitted Through the Service" at https://groups.io/static/tos Since the poster owns the rights to their posts, they should be able to do whatever they want with them. If you add restrictions to disallow deleting, based on the second paragraph there, then I'd say disabling deletion might work. Chances are that at some point you'd have a run-in with a lawyer though and that could get expensive.

Duane


 

J,

But it doesn't really exist.
That's the meaning of a "moral" right - it exists only in the opinions of those who share that moral position.

The post may be incorporation by quotation into a reply, and then
it's there for good. What real good does it do to allow deletion of
the post itself?
Yes, there is that thorny issue.

If the member's contribution had monetary value copyright law would come into play and a quote in full would likely have to be taken down as well. The concept of "Fair Use" allows only limited quotation.

For more ordinary group conversations my answer is more nuanced. If the quote contains or constitutes a TOS violation then of course it must come down. Likewise if I (acting as moderator of the group) think that the quote is disruptive or not in keeping with the guidelines or "spirit" of the group. Otherwise I think being quoted is one of the risks that a list member takes; they'll have to take whatever solace they can from having removed the authoritative copy of their words - and dismiss the quotes as mere hearsay.

I also disagree with the "moral right." There's no moral right to
take back the sent email. Etc.
True, but I make a distinction between content held privately (in someone's email folders) and content posted in a group (or in the case of groups with public archives, posted for the world to see). One can't un-ring the bell, but that doesn't mean one deserves to have it rung again for every newcomer.

Truthfully, if this hole vis-a-vis locking and moderation could be
fixed, I would not be arguing so strongly about this. But it's now
disruptive on several fronts when someone deletes a post.
I don't think it is a hole. Or rather, I'd see it as a loophole if it operated the way you want - a way to circumvent the delete function.

Shal

--
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


 

The poster does not own exclusive rights to it. They grant rights to groups.io. It’s in another section. Plus we can incorporate it by quote.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 2, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Duane <txpigeon@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 09:38 am, J_Catlady wrote:


On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 09:16 am, Duane wrote:


If there were a way to prevent deletion of the entire post (which I
disagree with), then I think it should also be mandatory that they be able
to delete their content from it by editing
Based on what?
I based it on the section "User Content Transmitted Through the Service" at https://groups.io/static/tos Since the poster owns the rights to their posts, they should be able to do whatever they want with them. If you add restrictions to disallow deleting, based on the second paragraph there, then I'd say disabling deletion might work. Chances are that at some point you'd have a run-in with a lawyer though and that could get expensive.

Duane


--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Duane
 

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 10:36 am, J_Catlady wrote:


The poster does not own exclusive rights to it. They grant rights to
groups.io. It’s in another section. Plus we can incorporate it by quote.
That's not exactly the way I read the 1st sentence: "With respect to the content or other materials you upload through the Service or share with other users or recipients (collectively, “User Content”), you represent and warrant that you own all right, title and interest in and to your User Content, including, without limitation, all copyrights and rights of publicity contained therein."

The second and third sentences don't give the site the rights to any content, only "for the operation of the Services"

Duane


 

The section you’re quoting has only to do with the user agreeing not to post any content that they do not have the right to post. It has nothing to do with this.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 2, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Duane <txpigeon@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 10:36 am, J_Catlady wrote:


The poster does not own exclusive rights to it. They grant rights to
groups.io. It’s in another section. Plus we can incorporate it by quote.
That's not exactly the way I read the 1st sentence: "With respect to the content or other materials you upload through the Service or share with other users or recipients (collectively, “User Content”), you represent and warrant that you own all right, title and interest in and to your User Content, including, without limitation, all copyrights and rights of publicity contained therein."

The second and third sentences don't give the site the rights to any content, only "for the operation of the Services"

Duane


--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

There’s not even a fair use issue here. The user has explicitly granted Groups.Io rights.


Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 2, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

J,

But it doesn't really exist.
That's the meaning of a "moral" right - it exists only in the opinions of those who share that moral position.

The post may be incorporation by quotation into a reply, and then
it's there for good. What real good does it do to allow deletion of
the post itself?
Yes, there is that thorny issue.

If the member's contribution had monetary value copyright law would come into play and a quote in full would likely have to be taken down as well. The concept of "Fair Use" allows only limited quotation.

For more ordinary group conversations my answer is more nuanced. If the quote contains or constitutes a TOS violation then of course it must come down. Likewise if I (acting as moderator of the group) think that the quote is disruptive or not in keeping with the guidelines or "spirit" of the group. Otherwise I think being quoted is one of the risks that a list member takes; they'll have to take whatever solace they can from having removed the authoritative copy of their words - and dismiss the quotes as mere hearsay.

I also disagree with the "moral right." There's no moral right to
take back the sent email. Etc.
True, but I make a distinction between content held privately (in someone's email folders) and content posted in a group (or in the case of groups with public archives, posted for the world to see). One can't un-ring the bell, but that doesn't mean one deserves to have it rung again for every newcomer.

Truthfully, if this hole vis-a-vis locking and moderation could be
fixed, I would not be arguing so strongly about this. But it's now
disruptive on several fronts when someone deletes a post.
I don't think it is a hole. Or rather, I'd see it as a loophole if it operated the way you want - a way to circumvent the delete function.

Shal

--
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

"By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Groups.io and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sub licensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content in connection with the operation of the Service."

Groups.io has a legal right to display users's posts, which to me means that it can display this post, for example, even if I later change my mind about it and want to delete it. Groups.io legally could, if it decided to, stop me or any user from deleting our posts

Any "moral right" of a user to delete their posts is not being granted even now because of possible total quotations. So allowing users to delete posts now is kind of a sham, given that the posts often turn up quoted within replies anyway. 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Duane
 

Ar this point, I think you should hire a lawyer. Maybe he can tell you if a poster gives up their right to their posts.

Duane


 

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 12:30 pm, Duane wrote:
Maybe he can tell you if a poster gives up their right to their posts.
You seem to think rights are always exclusive. Both groups.io and the poster have rights to display and reproduce the User Content. That means, respectively, that groups.io has a right to continue to display it, and the user *also* has a right to display and reproduce it elsewhere. Nobody is talking about users "giving up their right" to their posts. 
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

J,

There’s not even a fair use issue here. The user has explicitly
granted Groups.Io rights.
That's why I would change the TOS to grant a limited license. One that the user could revoke by removing their material (or requesting that it be removed).

Shal

--
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


 

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 12:25 pm, J_Catlady wrote:
irrevocable license to copy, display,
And by the way the word "irrevocable" means that legally, I as a user cannot make groups.io delete my post - i.e., revoke the rights I have granted to display it. Legally, it's obvious to me that groups.io would be completely in the clear to disallow deletion. Morally, IMO it would also be in the clear  since incorporation by quotation is already happening and the user can't do anything about it (i.e., the "moral right" is not even being granted currently). 
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

Shal, if you're talking about changing the Terms of Use that's a whole different ballgame. The current TOU doesn't grant users the right to delete their posts. Of course I think it should stay that way. But that's a matter of opinion.

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
J,

> There’s not even a fair use issue here. The user has explicitly
> granted Groups.Io rights.

That's why I would change the TOS to grant a limited license. One that the user could revoke by removing their material (or requesting that it be removed).

Shal

--
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum





--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu