Translating/Transcribing postcard messages

[Cassisia]

@varn

Seems that you are against permanent storage of personal data including addresses, images, etc.

I’M NOT! STOP IMPLYING THINGS I DIDN’T WRITE!!

[varn]

Thank you for clarifying! @delenn_mir

@delenn_mir

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).

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.

@varn

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.

[varn]

Thank you for clarifying. Then it means you are okay with the permanent storage of personal data in Postcrossing’s private messages.

[delenn_mir]

@varn

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.

I am not worried about the trustworthiness of my (theoretical) swap partner and never said that. Please do not make such assumptions.

[Cassisia]

I’m OK with it IF the data is shared CONSENSUALLY.

[varn]

@delenn_mir

I am not worried about the trustworthiness of my (theoretical) swap partner and never said that. Please do not make such assumptions.

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?

@Cassisia

I’m OK with it IF the data is shared CONSENSUALLY.

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.

[S_Tuulia]

@delenn_mir

it will push people to seek help in other places, thus generating more exposure of postcard backsides without any control of the Postcrossing team.

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.

@delenn_mir

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

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)

[Bille]

Please stick to facts here and don’t keep making assumptions about what other users might think.

[littlesthobo]

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.

[littlesthobo]

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.

[S_Tuulia]

@littlesthobo

we are never going to give you your win.

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.

[S_Tuulia]

@littlesthobo

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.

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.

@littlesthobo

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

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.

[littlesthobo]

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:

@S_Tuulia

I hope you are not encouraging members to overlook these guidelines whenever they want to.

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.

[S_Tuulia]

@littlesthobo

I feel like you missed my point entirely

I don’t feel like I missed.

@littlesthobo

I was stating I feel like the OP is trying to win an argument

@littlesthobo

we are never going to give you your win.

It’s clear.

@littlesthobo

tone, language used, and massive amounts of content continually posted to the point of the thread being switched to slow mode.

I know that removing “personalities” and “feelings” might make the tone different, but it’s good way to deal the problem when it’s not about persons, but about the problem. He is continually asked the same questions, and if he refers to earlier answer, it’s told he ignores it.

@littlesthobo

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.

As did you. Right?
Also, you stated guidelines are merely request, not laws, and following your logic one can choose not to follow this.

Do you see? It’s not that you choose what guideline should be followed.
What is not important for you, is that for another.

@littlesthobo

that you do not tell me what my opinion is, as you tried to do here:

I didn’t tell, and won’t try, I wrote my concern about your impression guidelines being merely a request.

@littlesthobo

@S_Tuulia

I hope you are not encouraging members to overlook these guidelines whenever they want to.

This is not what I said or meant.

I didn’t say you did. It was again my worry, about you not treating guidelines as important, or how it seems to me. So are you saying you don’t need to follow the guidelines? Or any of those who publishes the messages? But some should be followed? (No need to answer, I am just showing how I feel you see “you and the others” more important might not be true, but my feeling.)
I think we are equal and guidelines are to all of us.

@littlesthobo

I beg you to please stop picking out my texts

Ok. Same.

[Cassisia]

@Varn wrote repeatedly that he wants to “build a case” against the translation topic. He did it like preparing legal procedure or in a debate at a discussion course.

@varn

The translation thread is official so I’m building a case against it here. For details, refer to my OP.

@littlesthobo

Do you disagree that the OP is trying to win a debate?

I don’t. My impression is that he’s in to win this. He tries to act like a moderator, by summing up some arguments, but unfortunately he did it in a subjective way: By dismissing, ignoring or twisting arguments which didn’t support his suggestions. He tried to fence the discussion to his liking and even made himself the judge, by curtly calling arguments invalid or not sound. And he implied things that weren’t written.

I voiced all this repeatedly, but his attitude didn’t change. Instead he continued to frame me in a way that I can only call inappropriate.

In my opinion acting like that can only mean that the person desperately wants to succeed.

[varn]

After digesting posts #242 through #249, let’s see how the case can be refined.

Sticking point: Presumption of privacy versus publicity

One particular sticking point lies in presumption of privacy versus presumption of publicity for postcard writings. It must be noted that I’m not building a legal case here. Rather, it is about the Postcrossing concept or the kind of service Postcrossing provides and the kind of postcard experience that I expect Postcrossing to curate. It is not illegal to post one’s written messages in most cases. It is also not illegal for Postcrossing to implement the proposed ban, which is certainly only a rule not a law.

My proposed ban adopts the principle presumption of privacy. Postcard writings are private by default unless permission is granted. On the other hand, alternatives “Revise guidelines” and “Keep status quo” presume postcard writings are public.

This principle is pretty much black and white. Suppose “postcards are private except for translation”. As a sender, we have no idea whether our postcard will be subject to translation needs. However big or small the chances are, the guideline effectively presume postcards are public. In my opinion, this is not the spirit of Postcrossing.

On (allegedly) invalid arguments

I described some arguments as invalid when I spotted self-contradiction in the reasoning. I realize this may sound disrespectful. I regret my word choice. Those arguments mainly revolve around data storage. See #221, among others, and my interpretation #225. Consider these two cases

1. Images posted in a public post temporarily but can be moderated and deleted
2. Images exchanged in a private message permanently and cannot be deleted

The question is: Which is safer?

• Would it actually be safer for us to exchange addresses in a public thread?

If one thinks 1 is safer for images, then one would also think 1 is safer for addresses. Obviously we don’t wish to publish addresses as in 1. So here we have a point of self-contradiction (see also #241. This is not to judge if alternatives are right or wrong, valid or invalid. It was only my rebuttal that these counter-arguments do not necessarily alter the logic of my argument.

So again, in this specific case, where exactly do we disagree? It seems to be again the presumption. Postcard writings are public so data security is no longer a concern in this case.

By the way, the delete function in private messages is a straightforward improvement for the forum. However, as noted in #234, it may not be easy due to the forum’s software architecture.

---

Below are again the three main positions that have emerged so far. Refer the OP for details. If you don’t agree with me, most likely you don’t agree with one or more of the principles/pros/cons listed in my recommendation, but instead, agree with those listed in the alternatives. Hope this helps us understand each other better.

Last but not least, even with the ban, the translation thread will go on with all the communication and mutual learning activities, such as postcard texts and captions. Only with postcard writings, I seek understanding that the inconvenience caused is for the sake of fairness (especially non-forum members) and the Postcrossing concept.

Recommended measure

Principles:

• Senders are the most vulnerable party as far as the message part is concerned
• Presumption of privacy
• Transparency: Exceptions (at least significant ones) to be made explicit

Pros:

1. Conforms to the community guidelines. No more exception within Postcrossing’s purview.
2. Relieve workload of Postcrossing team to screen the content of postcard writings.
3. Obviate the necessity to explain the official translation thread on the main site. Not all Postcrossers are forum members.

Cons:

1. More troublesome to get a translation/transcription.

Alternative 1: Revise guidelines

Principles:

• Recipients to be prioritized over senders
• Presumption of publicity
• Significant exceptions to be made explicit

Pros:

1. Community guidelines reflect current activities on the forum
2. Easy to get a translation/transcription

Cons:

1. Difficult to explain on the main site
2. Difficult to moderate the content of postcard writings

Alternative 2: Keep status quo

Principles:

• Recipients to be prioritized over senders
• Presumption of publicity
• Exceptions (at least some insignificant ones) to be kept implicit

Pros:

1. Easy to get a translation/transcription
2. Decrease questionable posts outside of Postcrossing
3. Safer to publish postcard images temporarily in a public thread than to store them permanently in private messages

Cons:

1. None

[Cassisia]

@varn I don’t know if you’re letting arguments out by oversight or with purpose; perhaps it’s a language issue, and the topic is quite complex.

As this seems really important to you, and I don’t agree with your summary in many points, I’ll try to assist again. I really hope that the missing points will now find entry in your summary.

To "Sticking point":

You write that “the guideline effectively presume postcards are public”. This is not true. The guidelines say: “The addresses given to you are private information and can only be used for Postcrossing purposes. Do not share them with anyone or make them public on the internet. This also applies to what is written on the postcards you have received, so please do not scan it.”

The rule is: Don’t scan the backside of postcards. The translation topic is a tiny tolerated exception, made for a certain purpose: help for translation. The translation topic doesn’t make the rule obsolete.

To "Invalid arguments":

You suggest to share the pictures of backsides not in the topic, but in private messages. And you compare it with the exchange of adresses.

As I already pointed out, the comparison isn’t suitable, so why do you keep on mentioning it?

You can’t compare the exchange of adresses for swaps or forum games with the exposure of the picture of a postcard. Both may contain personal data, but:

• The adress exchange is an agreement between two persons, sender and reciever. As an adress contains highly sensible data directly linked to a person, it’s self-evident that it shouldn’t be exchanged in topics, but in private messages.

• The exchange of a postcard’s backside’s picture would occur between the reciever and a third person. The sender hasn’t agreed to this. The picture could contain data linkable to a person via research (postcard ID), or a name or place, or data about family or job (like married to, kids named, work at…). But we’re talking about less sensible data.

Comparing incomparable issues doesn’t strengthen a case, but makes it implausible. This comparison is invalid.

If you want to compare something, let’s stick to the relevant comparison “posting picture in the topic” or “sending the picture via PM”.

Btw, the missing consent is an important point here because this bothers you enormously concerning the topic, but strangely not concerning the PM. But it’s important for readers of this topic to find all arguments in your summary, isn’t it? So why are you leaving out this important point?

To "Recommended measure":

Your third principle is “Transparency: Exceptions (at least significant ones) to be made explicit”.

As I pointed out repeatedly, the exceptions are not significant. It’s about 1 in 10.000 cards (conservatively estimated). 0,0001% is not a significant amount which would require a change of the terms.

If you want to be transparent and objective, you should put a hint about the percentage in your summary to let readers decide if they find it significant.

And the point “relieve workload” in the Pros is questionable because with a ban there would be topics to delete where people ask for translation. This requires work too, especially explanations why they’re deleting it.

And in the Cons you’ve let out the risk mentioned by several members that users in search of translation get pushed to other platforms, outside the responsability of Postcrossing.

To "Alternative 1: Revise guidelines"

Same here: If you want to be transparent, you should put a hint about the percentage of 0,0001% in your summary to let readers decide if they find it relevant.

And you should mention under “Cons” that mentioning a theoretically possible, but highly improbable exposure of a postcard in the terms & conditions could scare away (new) members.

To "Alternative 2: Keep status quo"

The second principle “presumption of publicity” isn’t tenable, as I pointed out above. An exeption doesn’t make a rule obsolete. It’s about exceptional tolerance of publicity.

And I think you should mention in the Pros why the topic is assumed safer than a PM: Because a topic is under moderation by responsible persons, PMs not.

A last thought: I wonder why you don’t mention the possible 3rd Alternative in your summary, how the translation topic could be ameliorated to make it more safe. There were some good ideas written about this.

[varn]

Comparing apples and oranges?

For avoidance of misunderstanding, indirectly quoting #252, let’s suppose someone named Gamma raised the following two points to compare the cases of exchanging addresses and postcard writings:

1. The address exchange is an agreement between two persons: the sender and the recipient. As an address contains highly sensitive data directly linked to a person, it’s self-evident that it shouldn’t be exchanged in topics but should be exchanged in private messages.
2. The exchange of a postcard’s backside would occur between the recipient and a third person. The sender hasn’t agreed to this. The picture could contain data linkable to a person via research (postcard ID), or a name or place, or data about family or job (like married to, kids named, work at…), but the data are less sensitive than addresses.

What does Gamma really trying to say here? One explanation is Gamma thinks it is impossible for a postcard message to contain personal data that requires the level of delicate treatment as addresses. To confirm this, let’s assume Gamma acknowledges a postcard message happens to contain address-equivalent personal data. Then according to Point 1, it should be exchanged through private messaging. This contradicts Point 2. So these two points are compatible with the presumption of publicity that Alternatives 1 and 2 have in common.

To directly compare posting postcard writings in a public thread versus exchanging through private messages too, let’s begin like this.

• Posting postcard writings in a public thread is safer than through private messages
• Then, posting addresses in a public thread is also safer than through private messages
  • Obviously it is not. Then, posting postcard writings/addresses through private messages is actually safer.

Now we realize that in this case, safety cannot be used as a justification for Alternative 2 – Keep status quo. Otherwise it amounts to saying one is fine with their addresses being published. It is not about data safety, but again, it returns to the presumption of publicity.

If missing consent is an issue in public posts, then it is an issue with private messages too?

Next, as with one’s position on whether consent is needed for public posts and for private messages, there are 4 combinations.

1. If missing consent is an issue in public posts, then it is an issue with private messages too.
2. If missing consent is an issue in public posts, then it is not an issue with private messages.
3. If missing consent is not an issue in public posts, then it is an issue with private messages.
4. If missing consent is not an issue in public posts, then it is not an issue with private messages either.

However, in some cases, it makes little sense to infer one from the other. Similar to #252, Gamma claims that 1 is true. How did Gamma come up with this statement? How can one infer A from B? Perhaps like this.

• If consent is missing in public posts, it is an issue.
• Private messages are more dangerous than public posts.
• If consent is missing in private messages, it is also an issue.

Now we’ve found one plausible implicit condition in Gamma’s statement which is

• Private messages are more dangerous than public posts.

In other words,

• Public posts are safer than private messages.

Then, to respect Gamma’s perception, we should post in public thread not only postcard writings of a third party but also Gamma’s address because in general Gamma thinks Private messages are more dangerous than public posts.

Screening before posting

Depending on what to screen, it is compatible with my recommended measure or Alternative 1/2 because the overarching principles in each case remain unchanged,

• Only remove address and ID. This means postcard writings are presumed to be public.
  • Revise guidelines Alternative 1
  • Do not revise guidelines Alternative 2
• Screening includes the message contents to ensure no privacy concerns.
  • By the time the admin/moderator approves, there will have been a transcription/translation because in order to screen the contents, one has to read it first.
  • The poster gets a transcription/translation, no need to publish.
  • Compatible with the proposed ban. The difference is that instead of the recipient looks for a translator by himself, the admin/moderator does it for him.
  • Eventually this means Postcrossing will provide a transcription/translation service, which I don’t think is necessary or practical. So I only propose a ban.

[Cassisia]

@Cassisia

My impression is that he’s in to win this.

Quod erat demonstrandum - what was to be proven is proven.

I find that @varn’s answer to my summary of missing points illustrates well that he is in to win this.

If @varns goal was to build a case, by spreading his problem in the forum to discuss it with others and put together all collected Pros and Cons, he could have used my and other’s input to make his case more objective and complete.

Instead he focuses only on my critic that his comparison isn’t plausible. (Sigh.) I can’t follow his logic anymore. I’m tired of reading lengthy essays instead of precise arguments.

This kind of discussion isn’t useful.

[S_Tuulia]

@littlesthobo

we are never going to give you your win

@Cassisia

he is in to win this.

Is this useful discussion? It’s just your opinions. Nothing about this topic.

So no matter how good points is taken up, have you too decided to disagree just to disagree?

@Cassisia

he could have used my and other’s input to make his case more objective and complete.

He has. Please read the first post in this topic.
It’s edited many times. Suggestions that did not get support have been “taken out of the focus” but left there still to read (not all are here every day, or reading everything when they are, but might be interested later).

My impression is, if he answers to you, it’s called he repeats it. If he doesn’t, he ignores. If he replies and tries to put it to an example, it’s “lengthy essay”, if he doesn’t reply to what is replied earlier, he ignores. To me it seems you try to corner him, by focusing on the way he answers, not what he answers.

---

I support the total ban.

If every suggestion has disadvantages, this ban would be in line with the guidelines, and therefore the best option.

@Cassisia

mentioning a theoretically possible, but highly improbable exposure of a postcard in the terms & conditions could scare away (new) members.

Telling openly about the risk, they may not put too much info to their cards, it serves as general safety warning, and also will help they in their decision if they join.

I don’t think Postcrossing needs to lure members by leaving out the important information that messages, possible containing private information, are published in a place where anyone can see them and that their privacy is not valued as one is given impression of, when now joining.

The situation now can scare away new members if/when they see the ignorance to their privacy, and reality being different than guidelines. It can also scare away old members.