Hey @Sven,
Apologies in advance for the length, but there is much ground to cover and I have a bad habit of not being selective in what I am responding to. I hope that I have adequately addressed the points you raised, however verbosely.
To give the illusion of brevity, I will collapse the more abstract part of my reply. I think it directly responds to the underlying logic of comparing text and speech an the problems of doing so, but it ultimately does not address the immediate problem of the thread topic.
The reason why I have different standards for text is because, unlike speech, we actually can take it back at some level. Treating text as immutable and irrevocable as the spoken word, and attempting to emulate its form and conventions, is logocentric (or, more exactly, phonocentric): it seeks to to judge and shape text according to the logic and constraints of speech, rather than its own. “Difference” is different from “Differance”, after all.
But even within such a framework, a double standard of a different kind is being applied: whereas speech in fact ceases to exist the moment it is uttered, preserved only in the lossy memories of its witnesses, written and digital communication are afforded no similar fate. Why must text be forever preserved and archived, yet speech is not treated likewise? Our voices are not being constantly recorded for the sake of indefinite data retention (yet / as far as we know…), so it is actually strange that we expect differently when it comes to the words on our screens—at least now, in an age of screens. Is it just because it is easier to do so? Or perhaps because we have been conditioned as a society by a governing paradigm that privileges the spoken word yet expects its written form to be preserved?
Text has a permanence that is greater than speech, and so we should approach considerations about text with that in mind. I think that this logically entails recognizing that the erasure of text is an acceptable response to its permanence, which restores some degree of ephemerality already present in speech, and that this recognition is grounded in the understanding that different standards on things like “taking something back” are appropriate due to this different nature. This is especially so in the context of easily edited and erased digital communications.
So more precisely, the kernel of disagreement between us is on whether the different standards for text should accommodate its differences from speech, particularly in modern digital communication. Because different standards are being applied no matter what, whether it privileges one or neither, for otherwise you would have no objection to even setting burn-after-single-read-through-TTS expirations on posts in order to emulate the transience of speech. In that sense, our disagreement is about conflicting views in our philosophies of language and their application to digital-textual spaces, rather than with the problem itself. It probably also has to do with differing views on what counts as digital commons, on the extent to which public messaging/posting should constitute “publishing”, and perhaps even on personal autonomy in public spaces, too. These are all nonetheless relevant because they shape how we approach practical problems like this and what we consider to be acceptable solutions to them.
With that armchair philosophizing out of the way, the “technical” matter of post deletion being an annoyance and inconvenience remains. I understand that frustration and agree that it is unacceptable behavior. It should not happen and those who delete their posts without due consideration for how it affects others, and without a very good cause that outweighs those considerations (like privacy concerns or a double-post, unlike those above) are doing a disservice to the community and should stop.
However, I think the appropriate response to this poor “netiquette” should be to inform the problem user through a message or conversation or (at worst) temporary sanctions, not to disable post deletion entirely. A rule or guideline can be added that spells this out, so that it is clear what the expectation is and where we can point to when it is violated. The first approach acknowledges and attempts to address the problem while still respecting the fundamental autonomy and sovereignty of users, including the problem user, up to (but not including) the point of malicious disruption. The second just strips everyone of their power over the public availability of their own posts. Only one of them preserves freedom.
Of course it is more time-consuming and demands more effort than flipping a bit in an administrative panel, but so are many worthwhile things we do and laud in contrast to more repugnant alternatives, whether that be in relationships or parenting or even in governance. We prefer democracies because they respect our rights and enable our autonomy, not because they are easier to live in than an opaque dictatorship.
I do not think the “technical” problem here is ultimately separable from its social and political dimensions, as most technical problems are not, so I do not attempt to discuss this matter at a purely technical level. I also do not think this is really a technical problem, but a social problem that produces technically frustrating results. Therefore, I think the solution to the real problem—disruptive use of the deletion function (by a minority of users) where editing, additional posts, or nothing should be done instead—is not technical, but social, and involves how we deal with this problem as one of mutual consideration. Attempting a technical fix for an social problem is technocratic and brings along with it all the baggage and problems that technocratic regimes always do.
On the technical side however, our disagreement frankly may just stem from the fact that you typically use mailing-list mode (half of the “anti-deletionist” camp are either very frequent or exclusive email users), which lacks the mutability that forum software like Discourse provides. So, you want the posting standards on the forum to resemble the capabilities of email users rather than suffer the interoperability problems of using email to participate, of which replying to deleted topics and not seeing edits are among the biggest. That is basically what this problem is at a technical level, after all: the lack of features, rapid feedback, and editability of email mode.
While I do not think that email users should be relegated to a second-class status, I do not think that handicapping site users is the appropriate response either. This will also need to be negotiated at a social level, so that interoperability can be improved through social conventions (such as “no deletion abuse”) where technical “fixes” do not and may just privilege one group over another, reducing the feature set of the forum to the least feature-available users. Or not, in which case mere technical “fixes” will do just that.
So, if no one here has any interest in addressing this problem with a more interactive solution that allots the same mutual consideration and respect that such disruptive deletions violate, by approaching it at the same social level at which it is operating, then disabling the ability to delete posts is a heavy-handed alternative to that. I consider this to be a failure at the social level however, and there is no technical fix for that.
Respectfully,
John
P. S. I also disagree that account “anonymization” and administrator intervention are sufficient remedies to privacy concerns. For example, they do not address a desire to mitigate stylometric attacks after the fact, as I mentioned above. But I have already typed more than enough, so I will end this rant here.