Yes. You can’t delete a PM. You can only remove yourself from the conversation. So the other party would still have access to the content.
I thought it could be deleted because I remember a temporary address of mine more than one year ago @MarinaL. Now I cannot find it but my memory must’ve failed me (@paulo, it seems that it wouldn’t be hard to implement a delete feature in private messages?). So let’s see how this mistake of mine affect my proposal.
Let’s think about this counter-argument.
- Private messages cannot be deleted while public posts can.
- It is safer for a post to be able to deleted than stored permanently in private messages.
- Postcard images need safe treatment. Therefore, it is safer to be posted in a public post.
Similarly, let’s say the same thing with addresses.
- Private messages cannot be deleted while public posts can.
- It is safer for a post to be able to deleted than stored permanently in private messages.
- Postcard images need safe treatment. Therefore, it is safer to be posted in a public post.
However, we don’t post addresses in a public post where it can be deleted but instead exchange them in private messages. I do so because I think it is still safer in private messages even though they cannot be deleted. It is still better than to expose my address temporarily.
I propose a ban of public posting of postcard writings (without the sender’s consent). I’m not opposed to private sharing.
If I understand you correctly, your claim is that sensible data on postcard images face a higher risk in private messages (limited people forever) than in public posts (uncertain number of people for a limited time period). I disagree as I’ve mentioned above but of course it is open for discussion.
As I’ve edited in my OP, here’s my formulation of the argument for keeping the status quo. This helps me understand where exactly we disagree and hopefully to find some common ground. I feel the sticking point is the presumption for publicity.
Keep status quo
Principles:
- Recipients to be prioritized over senders
- Presumption of publicity
- Exceptions (at least some insignificant ones) to be kept implicit
Pros:
- Easy to get a translation/transcription
- Decrease questionable posts outside of Postcrossing
- Safer to publish postcard images temporarily in a public thread than to store them permanently in private messages
Cons:
- None
And am I sensing a potential consensus here? If private messages can be deleted, then you would support the proposed ban? @Cassisia @delenn_mir
1 Like
No, I wouldn’t, because
-
you still have the problem of missing consent of the postcard’s sender whose data would be shared without their knowledge, and
-
it would be up to the members that the pictures get deleted, out of reach of the responsible people. I’m sorry, but here my trust in the Postcrossing team is higher.
Wasn’t the issue of missing consent what started this whole process?
I’m really confused that this doesn’t seem to bother you concerning the secret exposure via private message.
2 Likes
Yes, but that doesn’t mean the proposed ban cannot be considered. You may be pushing for a ban on permanent storage of personal data. Here I am proposing a ban of public posting of postcard images. These two do not necessarily contradict each other.
These technical details can be ironed out. There is a report feature in private messages. If you notice a postcard image is not deleted in time, you can alert the admin. If you insist the two parties may both be irresponsible, then posting it publicly will probably invite more irresponsible third parties.
I am still sensing a potential consensus here. If private messages can be deleted, then you would support the proposed ban? @Cassisia @delenn_mir @littlesthobo @MarinaL
1 Like
Yes, they do. If you delete the translation topic, there isn’t a legally responsible alternative for the users as Postcrossing cannot suggest the private message alternative, because it also contains a violation of data protection, as I’ve pointed out already.
The missing consent of the sender isn’t a technical detail which could be ironed out! Again you’re ignoring my point completely, so I’ll ask again:
You don’t need to ask again if I support your suggestion; I don’t.
P. S.:
No, I’m not. Where did I write that? I wrote that your case and argumentation imply a complete ban of translation help.
2 Likes
No, I would not support the ban because IMO it will push people to seek help in other places, thus generating more exposure of postcard backsides without any control of the Postcrossing team. That has been my first and foremost concern.
People will seek the route of the least resistance so if they cannot simply post a picture with a few written sentences here and are instead forced to use private messages in a more convoluted way, they will make use of other channels/social media. I do not want that. I prefer some measure of control, even if tiny, than no control.
It’s like you have people do road races on public roads (posting on social media - bad things can happen to many people), racing on racing circuits (posting publicly on the forum - bad things can still happen but with much less probability and to a smaller number of people, and there is some control) and racing in secret in unknown places (posting in private messages - no idea what is happening, bad things can happen to an unknown number of people, no control).
I choose the road of the lesser evil here and I think the translation topic is that road.
Also, discussing if private messages can be deleted or not has no point because if I recall correctly it’s the forum’s software’s internal feature and cannot be changed unless the whole software is changed by Discourse. I doubt it will ever happen. If I am wrong, please correct me.
3 Likes
Seems that you are against permanent storage of personal data including addresses, images, etc. Do you have any suggestions how Postcrossing might improve this?
Yes, I raised the issue for the case of public posting. In the case of private sharing, I don’t think it is needed.
1 Like
I’M NOT! STOP IMPLYING THINGS I DIDN’T WRITE!!
4 Likes
Thank you for clarifying! @delenn_mir
Actually I still feel I can simply insert the term “addresses” in your reasoning above and it is roughly the same as below. If you’re worried that your swap partner is not trustworthy and the inability to delete a private message is security concern, then it seems that it’d be safer to exchange addresses in a public post.
1 Like
Thank you for clarifying. Then it means you are okay with the permanent storage of personal data in Postcrossing’s private messages.
I am not worried about the trustworthiness of my (theoretical) swap partner and never said that. Please do not make such assumptions.
2 Likes
I’m OK with it IF the data is shared CONSENSUALLY.
2 Likes
Since you’ve said this, then I would assume you are not worried about the person with whom you’re sharing a postcard image in a private message either?
I totally agree with consensual data sharing! As you’ve said this, why can we share postcard image before proper screening and without consent? This question is intended to guide you from “Alternative 2 Keep status quo” to “Alternative 1 Revise guidelines”. Well, and you know I’m still for the ban.
This has already been answered/commented several times.
Postcard backs are already published elsewhere, and Postcrossing team has no control over it.
They have control over it what is published here.
Also, it is mentioned how minimal the need for translation thread is. Only this minimal amount would be elsewhere if they all publish it elsewhere.
I see it gives more possibility to ask the sender or trying to understand it by themselves.
There is no evidence or reason to believe they will do that (it’s a possibility, but again, the minimal), and apparently they still post to other social medias.
With road race example:
there is possibility of for example drive nicely, on normal road (ask the sender)
you don’t have to drive at all (try to read what is written or accept the normal part of communication - not understanding everything)
2 Likes
Please stick to facts here and don’t keep making assumptions about what other users might think.
10 Likes
Absolutely not. Again, I have zero problem with the translation thread on any grounds. I think it is wonderful and would like it to stay exactly as is. It shows the spirit of this community, which is (except for this thread that is allowed to go against the guidelines ironically) one of total politeness and sharing. Again, you are offering solutions to something I and others do not perceive to be a problem. So, we are never going to give you your win. In fact, I see only one other person supporting you.
4 Likes
Again, consent is not required for public or private sharing of a postcard that you have gifted someone. Legally, it is there item to do with what they will. PC has asked nicely via guidelines that backsides not be shared. However, it is merely a request (as guidelines are) not even a rule and certainly not a law.
1 Like
Is this the spirit of the community to you?
Who is the “we”? Are you leading an attack? What happens to the ones who “loose”?
It would be friendly to remove this kind of message that encourages people to attack the ones who disagree and attempt to form sides, it doesn’t courage to civilised conversation and living friendly even in disagreement.
I think this topic has been a rare topic where are made good efforts to say in facts.
1 Like
It says:
" The Community Guidelines are in place to help you understand what it means to be part of Postcrossing. Please note that your use of Postcrossing is subject both to these Guidelines and our Terms of Service."
For me, most of these are common behaviour which I don’t need to be told. I send cards to addresses I get, I register cards, I don’t publish others addresses. It’s not that you choose what parts of guidelines you follow.
If you violate these, like not send your cards, I think your account will be suspended.
I hope you are not encouraging members to overlook these guidelines whenever they want to.
This topic was discussed in another thread, so I don’t think it needs to be brought here too.
But like I linked earlier, majority didn’t like their messages published.
1 Like
I feel like you missed my point entirely but that may have been purposeful.
I was stating I feel like the OP is trying to win an argument. I think that others could understand me having that opinion based on the OP’s tone, language used, and massive amounts of content continually posted to the point of the thread being switched to slow mode.
Do you disagree that the OP is trying to win a debate? I think they have said so multiple times. They have made it clear that they will not stop arguing until their suggestion is implemented. I personally feel this approach goes strongly against the community guidelines.
I, in no way, have encouraged anyone to attack anyone else. I would like to see this type of discourse end.
I hope that my intentions are crystal clear now and would appreciate, as the mod has implored, that you do not tell me what my opinion is, as you tried to do here:
This is not what I said or meant. As you are having such trouble accurately interpreting my words, I beg you to please stop picking out my texts to attack.
4 Likes