"Deactivate account" option, and dead members

(Following on a suggestion by @davidgn on https://www.librarything.com/topic/270618#6398004)

LibraryThing has always had a "delete account" option. But I think the time has come to add a "deactivate account" option, for people who want to take a breather, or want to delete their account, but preserve the ability to recover it.

I'm thinking deactivate works like this:

* Member's profile is made unavailable.
* Member's books are NOT deleted, but rather we basically show them as belonging to a private account. This make their reviews, ratings and all bibliographic information private too.

At present, the system does not delete most other data, such as talk posts, CK edits and so forth. Private messages and other messages between members are marked as removed. They would be marked as removed for these members too, I think.

BTW: The way we do deleted accounts is unfortunately suboptimal. On early LibraryThing there was no distinction in WHY someone was deleted. Some deleted themselves. Some were deleted for being spammers, TOS violators, or whatever. So the page is non-commital. This is unfortunate. Example: http://www.librarything.com/profile/yak-abby-test

If we're going to implement this, we should probably also work on a death option. I haven't given this much thought, or indeed research. But Facebook has implemented a "memorialized account" option (see https://www.facebook.com/help/1506822589577997/ ). As I understand it, this involves:

* A setting of someone as a "memorialized" account
* A way to designate someone as a legacy contact

Any thoughts about either issue?

>1 timspalding: Why yes, I *do* have suggestions on Legacy settings, and that includes a legacy contact. This needs to be something set up long before it becomes necessary, and needs to be verified by staff before the setting takes place. You have about a zillion Legacy accounts (including your own, bless your heart), and there ought to be a strong differentiation between those and an "In Memoriam" account.

I noticed that achieving the age of 70 put me into a category where no one remarks "Oh, she was so young," when someone dies. It's a phrase that still gets used on someone who is 69, so it's clear that the decade is different. Okay, okay, back to the issue...

I have instructions for various online accounts (because I'm compulsive, and because it's a kindness to others, when someone just suddenly disappears), from just delete to post this message (where I've written a brief farewell). I suspect this will become more common as time goes by.

No, I'm not planning on anything happening anytime soon, but you just never know.

That "Deactivate" model sounds about right. On the other hand, a "Delete" option should actually... well, delete things like Talk posts and conversations (in line with your initial impulse in https://www.librarything.com/topic/270618 ). What to do with pre-existing deleted accounts is an open question -- perhaps leave as-is with Talk posts/conversations intact by default, but accept e-mailed requests for nuking these? (Hmm; how to authenticate?)

As far as "memorialized account" ... maybe I'll do some reading and weigh in at some point.

>2 Lyndatrue: I agree that something ensuring that the member had wanted such a thing needs to be verified--the thought of having my account as a memorial or figurative legacy (because most of my books will be an actual legacy) makes me cringe, though not as much as facebook's use of 'remembering' does. (Facebook allowing for a dead person to accept 'friends' is just weird.) My executors will have my account password anyway; if I want a death notice on my profile they can take care of it.

>3 davidgn: Why should entire discussions be destroyed just because someone left a site? That is not how forums normally work. And Talk is a forum, not a social media site. LT is not remotely in the same place as FB or Twitter or such, it's a cataloging site with a forum on the side, so I don't know why those were seen as the examples in that previous thread that I was sadly not around at the time to take part in.

Ya, I don't like removing talk posts for anything but TOU violations or serious privacy concern, which are usually limited to a limited number of posts.

>5 .Monkey.: Hear, hear.

>1 timspalding: Just confirming that a deactivation would be a true deactivation—the member wouldn't be able to continue cataloging items to their library or have any other new activity on the site until they reactivated their account.... right? The catalog should probably have more info than just saying it's a private library, we should make the distinction that it's a disabled account.

As far as memorialized accounts for deceased members....that's tricky. I agree with others that there should be a setting for the member to set, whereupon they decide whether or not they want their account to be memorialized or not, along with a place to enter the name and/or email of the legacy contact (not required, though). I'm unsure what the default setting should be, if we made one—whether opt-out or opt-in of the feature. (Facebook's default setting is opt-in, which I didn't even know about and I don't like to be honest.)

>5 .Monkey.:

I could not possibly agree more. And I think >3 davidgn: is rather disingenuous, given how strongly the polling in that thread was in the direction of "Do not delete profile comments or Talk posts from members who choose to delete their accounts".

I still agree with what I said in that thread, so I'll just link to it:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/270618#6200609

You have about a zillion Legacy accounts (including your own, bless your heart), and there ought to be a strong differentiation between those and an "In Memoriam" account.

Definitely.

That "Deactivate" model sounds about right. On the other hand, a "Delete" option should actually... well, delete things like Talk posts and conversations

I don't know. I feel weird about deleting all the talk posts of past members. But, yes, if we add this option, then indeed it should work that way.

Why should entire discussions be destroyed just because someone left a site? That is not how forums normally work. And Talk is a forum, not a social media site.

Forums are social media :) But, yes, parts of LT are more like an old-fashioned forum system. Then again, most of those have died anyway, over time. So up and down. I'm not sure.

Just confirming that a deactivation would be a true deactivation—the member wouldn't be able to continue cataloging items to their library or have any other new activity on the site until they reactivated their account.... right? The catalog should probably have more info than just saying it's a private library, we should make the distinction that it's a disabled account.

Yeah, user couldn't do anything except log in. When they logged in, they'd be confronted with a message asking if they wanted to activate it again, or what.

>9 lorax:

We must clearly separate the conversation between deleted and deactivated, and between what's done after the change in paradigm, and accounts that were "deleted" before.

Would you be okay with giving FUTURE "deleted" accounts the ability to remove comments and talk posts? I feel there needs to be SOME way to allow members to do that.

>9 lorax:

Would you be okay with giving FUTURE "deleted" accounts the ability to remove comments and talk posts?

If you also give members the ability to easily archive all comments that we wrote or received so that we have a copy, I'd be fine with letting people delete all comments by deleting their account. I don't like the idea of someone who decides they don't want to use the site anymore getting to delete something that I wrote in a way that I can't recover.

I'm less happy about letting them delete all Talk posts. There's a lot of accumulated knowledge there. Do you really want to lose years of, say, _Zoe_'s posts if she someday decides she prefers someplace with better date-read tracking?

>11 lorax: I think the option should be there, but the interface should clearly steer people to deactivation rather than deletion. Anyone with a clear motivation to want to nuke their account entirely will ipso facto have the motivation to jump through a minor hoop or two to have that done. I might have misread Tim's post in >1 timspalding:; if he was proposing to remove private conversations from people who have chosen to deactivate, I'm not sure that's best. Correct me if I misread something: as things stand, upon deletion private conversations are marked (internally) as removed but still show up? If that's the status quo, it should either be preserved, or a less convoluted arrangement to the same effect (i.e. of preserving these private conversations) should be put in place for deactivated accounts.

Once again: for accounts already deleted under the existing system, I think the status quo should probably prevail. (I suppose that leaves the question of what to do with someone who deleted their account in the past expecting everything to disappear who now wants that to be an option for them. Perhaps no system; perhaps evaluate that case-by-case, should such a case arise.)

>10 timspalding: It is obviously social but come on now, let's not play semantics, there is a massive difference between things like FB/Twitter where it is all individuals with their own pages shouting into the ether etc, vs a forum with threads containing long focused discussions. And you're also vastly overestimating how "old-fashioned" and "dead" forums are. They exist all over the place. And hell, even if they didn't, what would that even matter?! That is still what Talk is, so trying to change the rules to pretend it functions the same as things that are completely different, would be ludicrous.

I'm only just waking up, but before this goes any further, I am absolutely against deleting ANY item in talk that isn't spam related, or accidental personal information exposure. Fine with me, if someone's just taking a vacation for a while, but if they're walking away for good...and why would anyone walk away from all the crazy book lovers here? I like it here...

Oops, sorry. If they're walking away for good, and ask for their account to be deleted, then fine, delete it, but leave the profile somehow in existence, and *all* their interactions with other members, including talk posts, and profile comments. It's like that idiot mechanism that Microsoft Outlook has, where a user can "recall" a message that they changed their mind on sending. Too late, bub. You sent it to my machine running a real operating system, and not only your message *didn't* get deleted, but now you look like an idiot as well.

I avoid Twitter like the cesspool it is, and barely tolerate FB (and I have 16 connections, which is probably 8 or 9 too many). Make a different little symbol when someone wants to kill their account, so that we see they're gone, but not spammers. Don't delete anything on talk, please, please, please. Please.

When it was reported that long-time user rebeccanyc had passed away, my first thought after the initial sadness, was "I hope her talk posts don't go away." She was instrumental in pulling me into talk in the first place because I loved her conversations about books. Even now, I still revisit her posts in the Reading Globally threads as a kind of resource. If they all disappeared, it would be a tragedy, and I think many threads would look gutted.

Perhaps if an account is completely deleted, any talk contributions could just be anonymized? "orphan account" or something? So they no longer linked to the person who left, but the conversations themselves retained their continuity?

Just my (not overly coherent) thoughts: I think it boils down to who owns our posts? Are they mine because I wrote them? Are they yours because I addressed them to you? Are they Tim's because this is his site?

Personally, I view my posts on other people's profiles as belonging to the other person. Like if I wrote Tim a letter and mailed it. Once he gets it, it's his property. I can regret what I said, I can disavow all information laid out in said letter, but I can't break into his house and take the letter. It's his, and my putting it in the postbox with his address on it demonstrates my intention that he should have it. I would posit that the hitting of the "post" button is the same as addressing a letter and dropping it in the mail.

Talk posts are a bit more complicated, just because ownership is less clear. I have a thread in the Category Challenge. It's considered to be "my" thread. I started it and I post my reading in it. So if Tim comes along and posts a comment, presumably he's addressing me. Then again, the thread is also a shared space. So if lorax posts a comment directed to Tim in my thread, and then Tim deletes his account, should lorax's comment be deleted as belonging to Tim? If I delete my account, should my whole thread go, never mind who else has posted? But I'm the primary poster, so if I leave, everyone else's comments will make no sense.

So I'm thinking nothing should be deleted from Talk or profile posts (barring spam, TOS violations, and the like). Even if you are not addressing a specific person in a post, you wouldn't start a Talk thread if you were not intending to address LT at large. I mean, I participate in the Category Challenge for the fun of it, but if nobody ever responded, my intentions were still to address the group. Otherwise I'd keep my reading challenges on a personal website or offline entirely, right?

(I suppose intellectual property could come into play here; I own my words, even when addressed to someone else. But if I wrote a book and then years later decided my book sucked, my copyright doesn't give me the right to steal the book from every individual, bookstore, and library that has it.)

ETA: Also, nothing is stopping anyone from going back and editing every post they've ever made to say *this post has been removed by the author* or somesuch, if it's really that important to them to remove everything.

>16 casvelyn:

So if lorax posts a comment directed to Tim in my thread, and then Tim deletes his account, should lorax's comment be deleted as belonging to Tim?

Most threads, other than in the challenge groups, don't belong to anyone - it's not "your" thread, or that of whoever started it, it's just a thread.

And many posts in threads aren't directed to anyone, they're to the group as a whole.

Perhaps with the exception of challenge threads, posts belong to LT. If someone really wants to delete them, they can do so individually. Don't make destruction of information easy.

>14 Lyndatrue: Make a different little symbol when someone wants to kill their account, so that we see they're gone, but not spammers.

I want to make sure this suggestion isn't lost, it's not the only good one in this thread but I only saw it mentioned once.

I would expand the concept to include the various types of supported account statuses. The identification of a deactivated / deleted / memorial account within Talk threads would be useful, in a similar way that identifying LT staff posts are useful.

>4 bluepiano: FB does not let "memorialized" accounts accept friend requests. Additionally, once a page is memorialized, only people who were friends of the deceased at the time of the memorialization can view the page. It won't show up on search if you weren't a friend, either.

In many cases, someone else has the password for the deceased member's account and continues to maintain it.

I had a terrible experience with this when my husband died. I had his password and wanted to change the profile picture to his favorite one instead of the jokey picture he had uploaded during chemo. However, someone else (I've never found out who) took it upon themselves to report him as dead. You have to have proof, like a death certificate, but in his case he had a number of obits published, so I imagine they just linked to one of those. It still rankles me.

So who gets to decide when an account owner is dead an gone is also kind of an issue for me. As it stands, I've done all the work on my late husband's library. He's been dead since 2010, and I would be livid if it were locked down without my permission.

I'm with >19 PhaedraB: Phaedra about memorial accounts. I have my father's library cataloged on here (after his death) because knowing I'd have a record of what he'd owned made it a heck of a lot easier to clear it out. It's clearly marked in the profile, but I still go in once in awhile and update things as I find books in the attic or read them and find his marginalia. I wouldn't like it to be locked down somehow just because he was deceased. I've advised other people who are having trouble disposing of loved ones' carefully curated libraries to do the same.

I would support a) some way of officially designating an heir to your account and b) some way of officially marking an account as a memorial account, and maybe officially linking it to a caretaker's account. But I don't like the idea that they would be locked down in terms of capabilities, or that they might be changed without a specific request from a designee. LT is different than FB and accounts on here mean something different.

Should they be able to make talk posts?

>19 PhaedraB: and >20 melannen:

Yes, I agree.

>21 JerryMmm: *They*, in this thread, encompasses different issues. Should deceased people who have representatives be able to make talk posts? No, please no. That'd be awful. Should people who have temporarily deactivated their accounts, for some reason or other? I'm not even sure how that would work.

My take is, if they're gone, then someone might speak *for* them, but not *as* them. Sorry if that doesn't make sense.

LT is different than FB and accounts on here mean something different.


Agreed, and I truly hope that we're able to convince Tim of this, since he seems determined to act as though LT is FB with fewer gifs and without a Like button.

>24 lorax: I completely *loathe* Facebook, and its forced camaraderie. It is the very opposite of natural social interaction. I am on it because there are a couple of people I'm related to, and care about, and I offer some emotional support now and then. Other than that, I mostly avoid it.

ETA: Tim should also consider that FB is dying a slow and ugly death.

I deleted FB back in 2012 or so, after being on it only a few years. It was awful and it grows worse by the day. It is the last site that LT should be taking anything from. :|

>25 Lyndatrue:

I'm on Facebook since it's the easiest way to keep up with far-flung friends and relatives. But it's about staying in touch with people you already know, not about talking with people you don't already know. That form of interaction is very old-school internet, and given how much Tim used to like to pride LT on being a relic of that form, he seems to be hell-bent here on discarding it all to ape decisions made in a completely different context.

Since there's a lot going on in this thread, I'll reiterate:

1. People should be able to temporarily de-activate their accounts. During this period, their books and associated content like reviews would be hidden; they could not post to Talk, comment on others' profiles, add books, or edit their book records (review books, etc.) . Their existing Talk posts and comments to other people should remain visible (on the other people's profiles, obviously).

2. People who delete their accounts entirely would have their books and other content like reviews fully and completely deleted from the site. I'm open to allowing this option to include deleting their profile comments to other people IF we are given an easy way to archive or download all comments we have sent and received so that the other person deleting them would no longer delete them from our possession. I am very strongly opposed to the idea that this choice would delete all their Talk posts. They feel that strongly about disavowing history, they can delete their posts one at a time. This isn't Twitter; old posts have value.

3. "In Memoriam" accounts are a good idea. I don't have strong feelings about what exactly they should entail and defer to people like PhaedraB and melannen who have experience with this type of account.

>23 Lyndatrue: I think I may just think of an LT account in a fundamentally different way - it's as much about the library as the person, and the library lives on (that's why making my dad's account helped me; it meant I'd always be able to remember the books he loved).

I think of myself as the archivist of my father's account, and while I haven't ever posted to Talk from his account, I can see how someone managing an account like that might want to post to Talk from the account as the manager of the account, if it was about those books (i.e., a 'book care and repair' thread about preserving books in the deceased person's collection). I really can't see what harm it would do to allow it, as long as the person wasn't misrepresenting themself as the original account owner, and that would be a different problem (and would be mostly fixed if memorial accounts were well-marked).

Although the memorial account I use is for someone who never had an LT account before; it would definitely be different for someone who was part of an active community on Talk while alive.

But even then I can see how it could be very useful, i.e., letting a designee who didn't have their own account make a last post to gracefully close out challenge threads etc. - on sites where a deceased person's account is no longer able to post, it can make it very difficult to inform people who know them through the site about what has happened. I've had friends on other non-FB social media sites who just seemed to go silent and nobody knew what happened until a RL friend of theirs finally managed to post from their account; that was tough but it's even tougher when there's nobody who can do that.

>21 JerryMmm: Do you mean someone logged into the account of a dead member? If you do, I'd say absolutely not. An heir, executor, buddy, talk-posting under such an account would in a sense be using someone's death for social profit & I suppose in a way altering that person's virtual identity without his permission. Besides, imagine the confusion in a group if a regular poster within it known for her love of classical texts suddenly began using textspeak to praise Dan Brown.

>10 timspalding: Yeah, [a deactivated] user couldn't do anything except log in. When they logged in, they'd be confronted with a message asking if they wanted to activate it again, or what.

Agreed: members who want to disappear for a while without losing cataloguing capabilities have the option of making their library private. On the spectrum private - legacy - deactivated - deleted, account holders should be presented with fewer options to engage in cataloguing and on Talk.

To me, a deleted account means the catalogue itself is gone and lost forever to the deleting user; any data available to other site users (their catalogued items, their CK edits, their added covers, contributions to Local, etc.) should show up as from a "private account", their reviews should disappear, their profile comments should automatically be made private, and their Talk contributions should be kept as-is, perhaps, as >15 southernbooklady: suggests, under an anonymous name. If the deleting user wants them gone, they'd have to empty them one by one, before the actual deletion happens, by going through their "Your posts" list one by one. This process should be made difficult and should not be encouraged.

Deactivated accounts means they'd be entirely inactive, unable to post anything, unable to add or alter the existing catalogue in any way (including switching between private and public). Perhaps there should be an option to have the deactivated account default to "private". Either way, as with deleted accounts, I think their data should show up as "private user" and their Talk messages should remain untouched. Profile comments default to "private". I don't think deactivation should trigger name anonymization in Talk.

Legacy accounts should retain most cataloguing / posting privileges, though their messages in Talk should be marked similar to the staff L or that yellow "first message" tag -- possibly even every message they ever posted? Perhaps these accounts should not be able to delete items from the catalogue? (if that is feasible).

So, more or less what >27 lorax: said ;)

On Livejournal (years ago) a deleted account's comments would remain, but their user name would exist with a crossed out line. It's clear that the user is no longer on LJ, but their comments remain. raidergirl3

What do people here think of the right to be forgotten? Whether or not LT has any ability, ever, to delete your account fully, we're going to have to deal with "right to be forgotten" requests from Europe. It's become quite standard, and indeed I'm surprised we've been hit with only a few, none of them formal or citing a law, yet. When we do get a legal takedown, we will have to choose whether to comply or not. I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to comply when such an order comes from, say, France.

I do think LibraryThing should strongly encourage non-deletion. For example, I think even when you DELETE your account, it should by default keep all your talk posts and such.

But I am also sensitive to the impetus behind the right to be forgotten--that there has to be SOME way of deleting your presence from a site entirely, if a member really wants it. We've certainly had a few members who went through dozens of posts and deleted everything they wrote, one by one. I imagine they've done it on comments to. And I think the way it works on almost all other sites have conditioned users to believe that there was a way out--a way to escape everything they wrote once, when they were young, foolish, oversharing of feelings or personal details, in an abusive relationship, etc.

I get that some here don't like it, but, as noted, you can delete your posts manually. Should we so disregard a members' desire to remove their data that we make them hunt everything down and do it manually?

ETA: Also, nothing is stopping anyone from going back and editing every post they've ever made to say *this post has been removed by the author* or somesuch, if it's really that important to them to remove everything.

And clearly some might. And it might take then a HUGE amount of time. And it might be impossible, because they deleted their account. Shouldn't it be possible to do this automatically, if, as you say, the desire is sometimes there?

They feel that strongly about disavowing history, they can delete their posts one at a time.

Maybe we could make it even harder for them. Like they have to delete their posts one at a time, three days in a row.

>32 timspalding:
Potentially very problematic as currently implemented:
e.g. https://boingboing.net/2014/07/24/eu-wants-google-to-extend-ri.html
(though I'm not up to date on recent ramifications, or whether the tizzy is still justified).

But useful in the strictly limited sense of a right to revoke one's own submissions, I think -- particularly outside the context of formal publication in the press, etc.

A few law review pieces I'll work through myself (for anyone interested):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2017967

https://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&...

http://www.vjspl.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/4-Carbone_Right-to-Know-Right-to...

and an unpublished paper:
http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1727&context=student_...

Plus see the following debate:
https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/us-should-adopt-right-be-forgotten...

It's already impossible to search for a member's talk posts.

>34 MarthaJeanne: with LT it is, but with Google you can search for a username no problem.

https://www.google.nl/search?q=TimSpalding+site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.librarything...

>32 timspalding:

I'm neither a lawyer nor a European, so I don't know how the right to be forgotten plays out in an anonymous or pseudonymous context. But I think this could be handled as it is now, going through and actually completely deleting a user when a specific request is made, rather than giving everyone a single button to push that deletes every Talk post they ever made.

Should we so disregard a members' desire to remove their data that we make them hunt everything down and do it manually?


I don't think that saying "I'm not interested in participating this site anymore" is expressing a desire to completely and totally remove all history on the site forever. I can imagine deciding not to catalog here anymore; I can't imagine being so vindictive that I'd destroy ten years of posting in a fit of pique as a result, or expecting that deleting my catalog would also delete that history.

>16 casvelyn: Expressed my thoughts, coherent or not on the subject. The best way to keep private is to not post/write/or speak. Other than that, your words get out and you must live and die by them. Words have consequences. However, not being a lawyer, I have no idea about these new laws of "Right to be forgotten." I simply assume that whatever I say online is there forever. Sorry, I have only opinions and no wisdom to offer here.

As for the memorial accounts, I'm for them. Although it may be tricky to implement. I have several friends here who have died, and as of now, the only way to let others know is to post a comment on their profile. It works I suppose, but seems sadly not enough somehow. I have a list of my accounts with passwords, and have requested my heirs to let my online friends know when I'm gone. I hate it when people just disappear. So sad.

"The right to be forgotten" is about forcing companies to erase all information they have on you when you stop using their services. For LT it would entail deleting all personal info on the user profile. There would be absolutely no need to delete their contributions as long as those cannot be traced back to an identifiable person.

I had put CK on a friend's author page after she died. Now I have added a comment on her profile.

I would be very glad to see the proposed "deactivate" option implemented.

I consider it normal, good practice to deactivate my online accounts whenever I am aware that I will be offline for a significant period. It
(i) reduces the possibility of someone hijacking my account and impersonating me in my absence (which I wouldremain unaware of, because of being offline)
(ii) it lets my friends realise that I am not going to receive any messages that they might otherwise try to leave me.

But I would be disappointed to have to start again from scratch afterwards.

Regarding the option to "delete" an account:

>36 lorax: I can't imagine being so vindictive that I'd destroy ten years of posting in a fit of pique as a result
In a fit of pique? REALLY? Is that the only reason you can imagine for someone wanting to remove all trace of themselves from a website?

Personally, I would treat the members here like adults and assume that, in the rare case that someone does want to remove all traces completely, they have good reason (evading stalkers etc.)

>32 timspalding: They feel that strongly about disavowing history, they can delete their posts one at a time.

Maybe we could make it even harder for them. Like they have to delete their posts one at a time, three days in a row.

I agree completely that "Deactivate" should be the default option, and "Delete" require deliberate access.

However, as I see it, the problem with the approach of trying to deter its use by the introduction of delays is that anyone who has a real reason to disappear may have to move fast. I remember a Facebook friend of mine - back when I had such accounts! - having to start again (new house, new location, new friends) after another friend of hers posted a photo (on their own page, therefore not under her control) which identified her, by her new name and linked to her FB account, thus giving her location and new name to her violent ex-husband. She 'nuked' her FB account, of course. I doubt she would have had time to go through the process you suggest.

Since you already have a de facto method of full deleting one's account, by egregious violation of the TOS, I would think it unwise to make the deletion process too onerous. Otherwise someone whose need is pressing may feel the need to attempt to trigger a ban rather than jump through those hoops and wait 72 hours. Resorting to that benefits neither them nor LibraryThing.

As regards information that has been posted to a public space, such as Talk or CK, I think the suggestion by >15 southernbooklady: is excellent.
It is quite common in forums to see posts labelled (deleted user). Removing the ability to attribute the content to the user would grant them anonymity without loss of information to anyone else.

Comments on a user's are a slightly different proposition. "Private comments" are a private conversation between two people; they do not contain information ever made public. So I cannot see an objection to allowing a user to choose to delete them en masse IF they are choosing to delete their account.

Memorial accounts:
I think it an excellent idea to enable users to name a proposed heir to the account.

I also think it would be a pity to lock accounts on the death of the owner. People can have very valid wishes for curating and maintaining such accounts.
I agree (i) that such accounts should have a symbol labelling them as such & (ii) my preference would be that these accounts should be restricted, such as not participating in discussions. If the curator needs to take part in a discussion, they can create an account of their own for that. I think that is better than unintentionally misrepresenting the deceased as still alive.

>38 anglemark:

The European Union Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC) defines personal data as "any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ("data subject"); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;" (art. 2 a) - even if the person holding the data cannot make this link

There is no requirement that this data set includes any specific item of data (such as the person's real name). Not only does a company have to dump your contact details, it must also delete all electronic correspondence with you. So posts by a person may count as personal data, if they are linked to a particular identity and include any information about the user. (And I'd hate to have the job of checking every post on a case-by-case basis!)

I do think there should be a way to voluntarily remove all trace of one's self fairly quickly (and without having to invoke a legal order!) but I think that :

a) it should not revert purely informational contributions like to CK or combining that don't include any personal information - they could just be anonymized or sth in the logs if necessary (covers/author photos I could go either way on)

and

b) it should be made very obvious that this is the nuclear option and difficult to do on a whim. Honestly, my preference would be "email staff and tell them you really do need to delete everything, today", and the staff member sends back a standard email explaining that it's irrevocable and it removes *everything* forever, and there are less nuclear options, etc - and then after a second confirmation only the staff member can actually press the button - the having to communicate with a real person is usually enough to make people think it through. But I would understand if staff does not want the extra work.

I absolutely oppose the alleged "right" to be forgotten. Admittedly this is in part because I am a genealogy librarian and so finding information on people* is my bread and butter. But I am also a historian by training, and the ability to erase the past, even such a relatively minor aspect of the past as LT posts, is just not cool.

As an argument for the other side, I am more sympathetic to people who want to erase their online presence to escape harassment/abuse/other bad life stuff. No one deserves to be abused, and if removing their posts from LT will help, then I think that need outweighs any desire we have to preserve everything. But if all you're doing is trying to erase the fact that you are or used to be a jerk, then tough cookies, you said it, now live with the consequences. Or if it's a "revenge deletion" because LT or another user has pissed you off in some way.

As far as LT complying with takedown requests from places that have a "right to be forgotten," I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how other countries' laws affect LT. As a private citizen, I support following the law of any jurisdiction one finds oneself in.

Aside: I know some people post their real name on here. I'm guessing most do not. How many of our usernames can easily be connected to our real names? I'm probably in some file somewhere at LT HQ because I've signed up for giveaways and I paid for my subscription with a credit card. But if you Google my username, you can find other websites where I use the same name (but not every "casvelyn" on the internet is me, FYI), but not who I really am. Although if somebody took the time to browse all my past posts, it wouldn't be too hard to figure out who I really am. I guess what I'm saying is that people here on LT know what casvelyn is saying, and people who know me in real life know what (casvelyn's real name) is saying, but who's going to put it all together? (Probably Google, Facebook, and the NSA, but that's another debate for another time.)

>32 timspalding: And clearly some might. And it might take then a HUGE amount of time. And it might be impossible, because they deleted their account. Shouldn't it be possible to do this automatically, if, as you say, the desire is sometimes there?

I'm okay with not making it easy (e.g. having to delete each post one at a time). I'm not okay with making it ridiculous (must delete everything in triplicate with a 24-hour waiting period between each round of deletion).

* At my library, we will not search for living people out of respect for privacy, but instead refer people to private investigators for research of that nature.

>40 Guanhumara:

Facebook's completely different; it's strongly and unavoidably linked to your real-world identity. I find it hard to imagine a situation where deleting all profile information, changing the username, and taking the library private would be inadequate to hide from a stalker, but where it wouldn't be sufficiently serious as to warrant deletion rather than de-activation of the account. Are people really going around posting their names and other identifying information in Talk?

I'm sympathetic to genuine need in this sort of situation, of course; I just don't think it should be the default for account deletion, or encouraged.

Also, I'm certain that Tim's mention of 3 days was sarcastic - he's on the side of "Postings belong only to the poster, and if anyone else finds value, too bad for them" here.

Incidentally, I would be in favor of having a way for people to find all their posts, to make the "delete all posts one at a time" more feasible.

>42 casvelyn:

Although if somebody took the time to browse all my past posts, it wouldn't be too hard to figure out who I really am.

If someone knows me personally, they could probably figure out who I am based on my library, especially if they pay attention to dates; there's enough geographic and career-track stuff in there, plus some other details about hobbies and the like, to narrow it down. But that lets someone figure out that RealName is lorax, not that lorax is RealName, and I'm far more concerned with the latter.

>43 lorax: I agree completely that complete deletion should not be the default option. I would imagine that very few people would want to do that.

The "deactivate" option should satisfy anyone in an "I'm pissed off with LT and want out" pique. (Does that actually happen anyway?)

But the few that do want to completely delete their account, probably need to do it quickly. The "3 days" may well have been sarcastic. But - realistically - how long do you think it would take for someone (under circumstances of extreme stress) to go through and find every piece of identifying information that they have posted, maybe over a decade or more?

Are people really going around posting their names and other identifying information in Talk?
I've seen people post their current location, hometown, schools attended, age, appearance, weight, anecdotes about their families - enough to make them recognisable. People chat - and talk about themselves. Unwise? Maybe. But it's easy to feel safe behind a pseudonymous username.

All it takes is someone who knows their real name to slip up and use that publicly, instead of their LT name, and suddenly they have a problem. And the stuff they posted "anonymously" now matters.

As to information that is not personal - contributions to the LT database in CK etc. I don't see any reason why removing that should be necessary - neither on moral grounds nor to comply with EU law. All that would be needed is to remove the association between the username and the data.

I don't think that saying "I'm not interested in participating this site anymore" is expressing a desire to completely and totally remove all history on the site forever.

Indeed, which is why I was suggesting we give them a choice when they delete their account.

I can imagine deciding not to catalog here anymore; I can't imagine being so vindictive that I'd destroy ten years of posting in a fit of pique as a result, or expecting that deleting my catalog would also delete that history.

I think many people who would want everything removed, whether from pique or other reasons--some laid out preciously. As for the expectation, well, that's an empirical question. I don't think anyone could deny that some would expect one way, some the other. I raise Facebook (and Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, etc. etc.) because they are well-known products that millions use. How they work sets user expectations.

Also, I'm certain that Tim's mention of 3 days was sarcastic - he's on the side of "Postings belong only to the poster, and if anyone else finds value, too bad for them" here.

I am? No.

Here's my proposal for deactivation, dead-ness.

Two options:
1. Deactivate
2. Delete

If the user chooses "deactivate," they have no further options. Talk and comments are preserved. Catalog is private. Profile lists them as deactivated.

If the user choses "delete," they are presented with a warning page (no recovery from deletion), and the following link, and checkbox:

Delete account (includes profile, catalog, reviews, etc.) »

\ \ Delete all messages (you have # Talk messages and # comments to other members)

The option will be unchecked by default.

If they check it, they are presented with a radio button:

(X) Keep messages, but label them as by "deleted user"
( ) Destroy all messages everywhere

And whatever you do, there's a final "Are you sure?" page.

What do you think?

>48 timspalding: So if someone maliciously gains access to another user's account, they can delete everything and it's not recoverable?

>48 timspalding: If they check it, they are presented with a radio button:

I think you should present the three options at the same time:

() Leave your messages as they are
() Keep your messages, but label them as by "deleted user" (or former user)
() Destroy all your messages everywhere

This makes the escalation of consequences clearer.

There will be users who want to leave their messages in place, but won't see the option to hide their user ids because it's not made clear that selecting Delete all messages... leads to an option allowing them not to do so.

>48 timspalding:

Question: what would happen to the profile information on deactivated account?

Will that also be hidden, leaving just the "deactivated account" information?
--
As regards "deletion", I could see a good argument for treating Talk messages and Comments separately. If you have separate count tallies, would that be easy to implement?

It's a question of perception: Talk is obviously a public space, whilst Comments have more the feel of a messaging analogue.
--
Since you were concerned about the possible legal implications of a future "right to be forgotten" request - could the username of a deleted user be replaced with "deleted user" when labelling their CK contributions etc.? Without that linking factor, there is no way that data entered there could be considered "personal".
--
I think you have hit the right balance on complexity vs. speed. Account "deletion" is fiddly enough that no one will bother with it unless they really mean to, but it can be achieved rapidly enough if necessary.

Nope sorry. Still completely against allowing for casual removal of Talk posts. You post on the internet, it is there for the world to see, too bad so sad if you change your mind later. At that point they can take the time to go through and manually remove their stuff.

Will references to the deleted user also be changed?

I’m not convinced on the deleting of talk posts without staff interference.

I strongly agree with >50 civitas: about putting all the options up front. Nobody will expect that "delete" encompasses "keep, but remove username".

I am also one who thinks Talk posts should be left as is. If they are deleted, they mess up past conversations if looking back, and maybe that person left a lot of helpful/useful comments that others go back to. Like others have mentioned, most people realize that once you post it, it's out there!

I also agree with a couple of suggestions that those people who are deleted or deactivated should be marked in some way as to make it obvious in those remaining Talk posts.

>50 civitas: and >54 AndreasJ: make good points, but I'm personally undecided on whether it's better to flatten the hierarchy (full transparency) or require the user to drill down (calculated obscurity).

I think the option to anonymize Talk posts is a valuable one, and in many respects a good compromise with the many in this thread who do not want to see Talk posts deleted. In some instances, though, it might not be enough.

1. Will this also anonymize > + post# and @ + username references by the poster or others?

2. Other posters will likely have referred to some posts in the body of their texts with reference to the poster's username. Can't exactly go editing those, now can we?

3. Only a few identified posts may be, in principle, sufficient to de-anonymize the others. Stylometric analysis is advancing by leaps and bounds, and a moderately sophisticated adversary will, with a modicum of motivation -- personal or financial -- be able to apply it with minimal difficulty. (Stalkers tend to be motivated to preternatural degrees!)
cf. http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2016/12/stylometry.html and https://33bits.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/is-writing-style-sufficient-to-deanonymi...

4. Data de-anonymization is a cottage industry for research in its own right.
Even as of a decade ago: https://www.wired.com/2007/12/why-anonymous-data-sometimes-isnt/
Lots of progress since.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-anonymization

5. It goes without saying that all the bits of personal information revealed can then be used to construct a profile and cross-correlate to match with an identity. Possible implication: abusive stalker narrows down and confirms new location of stalkee (potentially based on correlating things as simple as time zones, weather at specific times, anecdotes of local politics, the fact that there are churches of specific denominations in town or that the local library is a historic building or was built recently, is at the bottom of a valley or at the top of a hill, etc.) Bad things ensue.

One other question:
What about bibliographic database edits for deleted accounts? I don't think anyone would argue that these should not be retained, but could these be anonymized as well -- at least to "deleted user" or the like? Edits to obscure authors and books of niche interest could easily be personally identifying -- possibly only in retrospect, from the viewpoint of the person at risk of being identified.

Considering how chatty some of the groups are, deleting the messages by that user won't hide one's name or nickname - there will be enough references in other messages in the threads.

I am not sure why someone would expect that their Talk messages will ever disappear - once something is posted, it is posted...

>58 AnnieMod: Exactly. If you're concerned about it, DO NOT post it on the damn internet. Period. Even if LT does this completely asinine thing, aside of other people mentioning usernames & real names all over the place, there's always sites like the Internet Archive where, oh hey sites that are even completely disabled can still be visited! I cannot believe that a forum, for discussing books!, is actually contemplating letting people destroy discussions like this. It is completely boggling.

>49 _Zoe_:

That's an especially good point in light of the persistent login with LT. I think anyone trying to delete their account should at least need to confirm their login with their password.

>60 paradoxosalpha: and >49 _Zoe_: And maybe even get an email with a link to confirm deletion, like a 2-step verification of sorts. Better to be careful here, I think.

>48 timspalding:

Given that you're hell-bent on this course of action, I suspect that's the best we're going to get.

Can we *please* have a way to backup all profile comments that you send or receive, then?

I am *very* concerned about the whole deletion thing, especially with the point that Zoe brought up in msg 49 (I don't know how to link to that). It's great to have multiple steps and a confirmation page, but it's *not* enough if the deletion is irreversible. I've had my email hacked before. I know plenty of people who've had their Facebook messed with. If someone else gains access to your account and can *irreversibly* delete your entire account, including all Talk posts.... That's not right! At the *very* least I think deletion should need a password, although I'd prefer something better like a confirmation email.

>63 Heather19:

Account deletion isn't anything new, so the hackability issue needs to be dealt with anyway. (Closing the import-export loophole, so that we could at least restore from backup with a new account, would be one way of dealing with this in the current situation, though it wouldn't solve it if account deletion also destroyed all Talk posts.)

Several websites have a period before deletion becomes irreversible - I've seen 30 to 90 days. The account is in reality deactivated (although the user has chosen delete) and after that period, it is actually deleted.

>65 quigui:
Yeah, I know LiveJournal did that when I deleted my account, there was a bold notice about it not being completely deleted for a certain amount of time. I know I've seen that elsewhere too, though I can't remember where. It would definitely be reassuring if LT had that.

>52 .Monkey.:, >58 AnnieMod:, >59 .Monkey.:, >63 Heather19:

I agree VERY MUCH with these views of it.

There's a tacit--putting it very mildly--agreement going on here. Some people actually paid the regular "life"-membership fee and in that bargain there was nothing I read about one's public disccussion participation with others being revokable by others at a whim.

No one is forced to participate in open-fora discussions. Those who do are making a deal: what one posts openly "belongs" to the site's conversation generally--that is, _all_ those who participated in it. Trying to take back/delete one's participation breaks faith with that deal.

As I recall, there is (or was) even a function which made private discussion fora (closed to all except on invitation and not viewable by those who were not "members") an option for those who wanted a means of discussing topics without having just any other member read or comment.

In classical Rome and Athens, writers routinely first read their work--finished or 'in-progress'--to a circle of their peers and did not publish their writings until this step in critical review had been taken because they understood quite well that, once published, they could neither retract nor even edit their texts--as there was no 'copyright', they had to get their texts 'right' before releasing them. Virgil, as many have remarked, had intended to destroy his Aeneid because he hadn't been able to put it into finished form before coming to the end of his life.

Participants are already able to delete single posts or to edit them, one by one. That's already more than enough oportunity to alter a regretted comment. Mass-deletion of forum participation is an insulting break in faith with everyone who--perhaps unlike the thoughtless and careless commenters--took the time and trouble to participate.

How many imaginative ways shall this site come up with to scream, "We really don't give a fuck about the time and effort our members invest here in data-provision and discussion!" ?

__________________________

Who here really thinks that the hundreds scores of "sole-member" titles/works I've cataloged here would be removed from the site's general title catalog if I were to deceide to "delete" my records? Seriously?

>67 proximity1: Who here really thinks that the hundreds scores of "sole-member" titles/works I've cataloged here would be removed from the site's general title catalog if I were to deceide to "delete" my records? Seriously?

Will someone please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it - they would be. LT does not support listing books owned by 0 members, so they would be purged at the next refresh.

>68 Guanhumara:

First, there are actually relatively very few works/titles in the LT catalog which have only _one_ or "no members" listed in any form whatsoever--i.e. as owned or "wished for" or even "read but not owned."

Indeed, there can be any number of works which no one actually owns under "read but not owned." The point is the same.

Read the terms:

..."By posting content to LibraryThing, you grant—and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, represent and warrant—LibraryThing a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, omnipotent, royalty-free, fully-transferable and sublicenseable right to display, use, analyze, aggregate, modify, adapt, publish, translate, transform, create derivative works from and perform in any venue or media, online or offline, as well as

"In Painting, Sculpture, and rapt Poesy, / And arts, though unimagined, yet to be." (Shelley, Prometheus Unbound)"
...

LT is, among other things, a "library data-base" "in a box". What did you think it was? And what did you think LT was selling libraries and other institutions? --True, they of course have a range of library-computer program products of their own making or adaptation which include things like catalog-interface materials, sorting and coding programs, all sorts of things which digitally-based libraries need and use. But they also have scads of "book" or "works" data, entered by members who at some point were interested in cataloging each of the 124,037,613 books. They (LT) agree not to sell or lend any data that is un-aggregated--that is, which could be used to identify LT members or details about them. But that doesn't mean that they've surrendered the right to make profitable use of the aggregated data which members, together, enter one way or another.

So, of these,

Members 2,279,268

Books cataloged 124,037,613

Tags added 141,513,596

Unique works held 11,916,436

Unique works total 21,088,265

Reviews 3,255,526

Works reviewed 1,132,934

Ratings 18,199,752

Member-contributed covers 5,563,156

if, for some reason, these 2,279,268 members were to all disappear or delete their accounts, the site would still hold these data:

Books cataloged 124,037,613

Tags added 141,513,596

Unique works held 11,916,436

Unique works total 21,088,265

Reviews 3,255,526

Works reviewed 1,132,934

Ratings 18,199,752

Member-contributed covers 5,563,156

>68 Guanhumara: No, that's incorrect. Works with 0 members do not show up on author pages, but they still exist in the system and can be found via search.

>48 timspalding:

Delete account (includes profile, catalog, reviews, etc.) »

Delete all messages (you have # Talk messages and # comments to other members)

The option will be unchecked by default.

If they check it, they are presented with a radio button:

(X) Keep messages, but label them as by "deleted user"
( ) Destroy all messages everywhere

And whatever you do, there's a final "Are you sure?" page.

What do you think?

I prefer it as amended and shown below:

Delete account (includes profile, catalog, reviews.) »

You may NOT delete your "Talk" comments, topics or threads (you have # Talk messages and # comments to other members) but you MAY have these labeled as "by a deleted user"

The option will be unchecked by default.

If they check it, they are presented with a radio button:

(X) Keep messages, but label them as by "deleted user"

And whatever you do, there's a final "Are you sure?" page.

>70 norabelle414: Thanks. I presumed that, having once been entered, they would be, in essence, addable again, but I had anticipated that their disappearance meant that their pages, and any CK information on them, would have been lost.

Zero copy works remain, albeit in the shadows, but covers do not. If a cover is unused, it will disappear.

I believe only the zero copy edition, meaning the Title, Author, ISBN triplet, remains for the purpose of enabling auto-combines. I didn't think that any other aspects of the work, like CK or other authors, remains.

And of course anything in the book record, Publication Info, Publication Date, Review, Comments, would all disappear.

>74 jjwilson61: Thank you. It was the loss of information such as Other authors, work-to-work relationships and CK that I was referring to.

But I presume that reviews remain attached to a work, even if the member who wrote them, and their copy, have been deleted - as long as other copies exist on LT?

>75 Guanhumara: Reviews are with the member, not the work. If you review something and remove the book from your catalog, your review is gone.

>76 .Monkey.: Technically, the review is a field on the book, just like comments, but the effect is the same.

>74 jjwilson61:, >75 Guanhumara: Zero-copy works can have work-to-work relationships, and CK, and any Other Authors that have been confirmed. All of those are work-level fields.

>78 norabelle414: That is good to know.

>77 jjwilson61: Right, but I mean that the information isn't a part of the work page, it is purely user-data that remains with (hence is removed with) the user.

Is there a procedure for reporting to LT when a member has died?

>81 Cynfelyn: Send a mail to info@librarything.com or kristi@librarything.com
(Taken from the Contact page linked to at the bottom of this page.)