The sender should join the forum to explain what they wrote on the card?
That’s not necessarily a pro. If the sender is disabled and can’t write more clearly, what then? It could make them feel bad.
Why bother? Personally, I would never do that, too much hassle to keep every message.
As a sender, if my message is not understood, well, tough luck (for me). I’ll take my chances. If the receiver wants to ask someone for help with reading it - without notifying me - they can.
A general observation - I think we can be going in circles here for a long time. There are two opposite views and neither side is getting convinced by the arguments of the other
On a side note - the guidelines also don’t state that the admins can tell you not to register something you have received if they deem it was not a postcard. In the guidelines it’s only written to contact the admins if you receive an item that you deem is unsuitable and it will be looked into. Should the possibility of non-registration be clearly mentioned? I don’t think so, no. Not every single thing needs to be clearly stated in a general document.
No they don’t have to. (They can already be here too.)
Then that’s what it is. They probably know it. They can also feel bad when their message is published and people perhaps make comments of their bad handwriting and how they make no effort.
I wouldn’t either, of every card but I know some do. ( I take a photo if they mention they know a little Finnish, and I write in Finnish, and they need a translation - few times it’s asked, and I appreciate it’s asked from me :+1 )
(About the side note: I knew I only need to register postcards, because it was clear to me in some other part, so I knew mine won’t possibly be registered if I send a ticket, but it could be added more clearly, just in case, but that’s another problem. Maybe own topic to that.)
I have this very same feeling.
Part of this is of course the different weight of the pro and con arguments in the eye of the beholder. If there is one argument that is very prominent to you, no number of repetitions or adding new (and often similar/related) arguments or nuances will change that.
This isn’t another problem, but a concern I voiced about varn’s idea that the pictures of postcards’ backsides should be shared by private messages instead of being posted in the translation topic.
He only wrote this:
I took the burden to read his initial post again, but it doesn’t contain anything about my question why storing the private data in other members’ private messages infinitely should be preferred to sharing it in a topic where it will be deleted after a short time.
Data protection isn’t just about sharing data, but also about how, where and how long it is stored.
Precisely. And there is A LOT of private data already stored in messages on the forum, forever. That is why it bothers me that there is no possibility to delete PMs here and also why I don’t remove myself from the messages. That way I at least know they exist and can go back to them if necessary.
I think it is, because solving the problem you present doesn’t solve the original problem (which is discussed here). These problems might overlap, but can be treated as separate problems too.
But yes another point, if the translation thread is banned, and not as many photos are sent via pm as now published here (some people try more reading the message, don’t care if they don’t understand every word), it benefits, as there is less private information visible, where maybe is screenshots taken, google lens used to translate and same message published again, maybe left to this senders phone too.
(From my memory @varn did answer you, that anything that is published in the Internet, can be somewhere forever, therefore it’s not safe to have it here either. )
Problem: Apples are poisoned, we must inform about it or remove the apples.
“Counter-argument/solution/distraction”: But what about bananas, you must think bananas too. The apples are not problem because there are other fruits, and apples are just so few, it doesn’t harm me if few people get sick of an apple. You must think of bananas too.
Does anyone understand what I mean?
I don’t know if people are intentionally distracting, or they really don’t understand the topic.
Or did I not understand.
I didn’t bring in this problem, it’s part of @varn’s suggestion! It would be his part now to…
deal argumentatively with the concern of data storage, if he wants to keep up with the idea of sharing pictures by private messages instead of posting them in the topic;
or admit that this is a problem he hasn’t seen and draw back his suggestion.
If you’re responsible for the data stored for your website, you have to decide for the solution which has less impact on the rights of the persons using the website. And my argument is that it’s better to delete the data in a topic in due time, versus letting it slumber eternally in private messages.
Now I’m curious if I’ll get a responsive answer to this legal issue.
Thank you @S_Tuulia for your rebuttal! This will generate a lot of redundancy but I wish to follow up again.
Thank you @Cassisia elaborating on your position, which I think is basically “Alternative 2 – Keep status quo”. Please understand the OP is my summary. I try and add important points relevant to the three arguments that have emerged so far. However, I admit I’m biased in the sense that I don’t diligently include the points that I considered less relevant and responded individually by saying so or other points that I didn’t manage to follow up. So let go through your replies one by one.
If the answer is the same, I’ll quote the full text for your ease of reference. If the answer is different, I’ll type it out.
Noted.
I don’t think you are a member of either of the two groups.
I didn’t mean to give you such an arrogant impression so I’m sorry I did. I repeated the same answer because it was indeed my answer to your question even if were asked before others.
I don’t wish to see a “real victim” to come forward just to make the case valid. Be it before or after those offended or affected complain, the structure of the problem doesn’t change. You’ve provided calculations on the miniscule scale of postcards affected by translation. Granted, the people affected would be fewer in this specific case. Returning to the principles I based my argument on, I wish to prioritize the senders in this case: assume unwillingness to share. This privacy assumption is what I think makes Postcrossing special. So my proposal is a trade-off between efficiency and fairness.
I’ve heard you.
Sound, valid or logical reasoning is most welcome. As I’ve said many times and in the OP, I hope the discussion will help identify as many major points as possible. Also, to facilitate discussion/debate, I broke my argument into parts and parcels such as principles, pros and cons for different groups, or more precisely, different roles (senders, recipients, translators, etc).
Personally, I’m drawn to merit in the argument. As I stated in the OP, I hope the admins will consider alternatives and concerns raised here.
This actually a higher-level concept. I didn’t say people deserve to know how Postcrossing works, especially when it comes to the treatment of the postcards they send, because I take the right to know for granted and because I think it’d be a more responsible thing for an organization to do.
Same as above. I take the right for granted to know how Postcrossing handles the exchange process. I think it’d be a more responsible thing for an organization to be transparent about it, even if there is discretion, at least say what the exception is.
I didn’t quote these in my OP but provided a summary and a link. I will never be able to collate all your posts in a more authentic way than your original posts.
I agree with you it is in the gray area of juridical discretion. Glad to have found some common ground! I do believe my OP is my best and most honest response. So here it is…
I don’t see a distraction here. I understand this: There is already so much data stored in private messages that we really don’t need to instigate more storage, of postcards’ backsides exchanged for translation (varn’s suggestion).
It doesn’t matter who brought in the problem, you said it isn’t another problem, I pointed why it is.
Yes, data storage can be discussed. Maybe you will open another topic to that?
Also, if you see faults in one solution, it doesn’t mean we should forget the original problem and only discuss the faults of a solution. (This is how I see it. Again sees as an attempt to distract from the original problem.)
No, I won’t, because I’ve just stated a counter-argument to @varn’s suggestion. I really wonder why you dismiss it as “another problem”. It’s a problem tightly knotted to his suggestion, and if he wants to stick with it, he should try to find a convincing answer why storing data longer than necessary is preferable.
I think data storage merits another thread for discussion. But to compare the two, I think we can compare the risk, the average exposure time. I don’t know exactly how likely an image stored on the server would be leaked but should be very unlikely. The period of time for a postcard is published on the forum is a certainty.
My concern is not only about storage time (which btw the mods can control in a topic but not in private messages), but about the fact that your suggestion will lead to uncontrolled, unnecessary data storing. I have a right that my data isn’t stored in unknown places for infinite time.
This was the second part of my concern : you can’t just dismiss the risk that people treat the shared data in irresponsible ways, like sharing it further, even if the purpose (translation) is already fulfilled and the data should be deleted. Directing people to exchanging data in private messages would be irresponsible in my opinion.
It’s a genuine concern. It can be demonstrated in a similar way.
For the act of storing that you’ve brought up,
Status quo
What is happening outside of the translation thread?
Many stored images
Blanket ban
What will happen if all the intended postcard backsides are permanently stored elsewhere?
Still many images as it looks like adding only a limited number to infinity.
It’s relevant but private storage is not the intended scope of discussion here. You may open a new thread and discuss how it can be protected or achieved.
No.
As far as I understand, the “Counter-argument/solution/distraction" is:
What should we do with the poisoned apples in our store? Well, if we put them in another store, they’re not our problem anymore, right?
You can’t separate both problems, because they are linked.
Ok, I’m giving up here. I’ve understood that you don’t want to hear concerns affecting your suggestion, nor are you able or willing to deal with them in an appropriate way. It’s much easier to declare them to be a separate problem. Your case building goes very convenient that way.
I see more like “it’s safe to eat here, no poisoned fruits”
(Let’s just not tell the apples can be poisonous because there are not many.)
If someone points out the poisonous apples, it’s distracted to other fruits (facebook, ig), how facebook is not safe, and we should care about that.
If apples are removed (not forced to put to another restaurant (edit. and if they were put to another restaurant, they will know a poisonous apple is handled), no one has to eat them.
But solutions are like let’s not remove them, because someone might eat them from the bin.
And then is distracted wanting to discuss how bins should be kept safe that no one eats from there.
I’ve understood that you don’t want to hear concerns affecting your suggestion, nor are you able or willing to deal with them in an appropriate way. It’s much easier to declare them to be a separate problem. Your case building goes very convenient that way.