Hacker News Reader

Comment by eclw | Hacker News Reader

Absolute vandalism. A public good has been built through a long term investment, but because it cuts against the interest of the commercial backers of a political party (commercial backers who have had every opportunity to grow a similar, competing, asset), the asset is wilfully destroyed. The politics of vandalism.

View on HN

The recipes are likely to be archived, not removed.

Existing content is not being destroyed.

They haven't actually confirmed this.

> mostly likely become archived, not removed

That sounds very easy to backtrack on or interpret in some unintuitive way.

Removing the recipes entirely (as opposed to shifting them to the commercial BBC Good Food website, or making them available via an archive) when the cost of making them widely available in perpetuity is likely negligible, would indeed be outrageous and draw widespread condemnation.

That is not what is currently being proposed, however.

Even in the worst case scenario, they will certainly be archived and made available unofficially.

The line going around is that recipes from new shows would be available for 30 days only, so I assume after the 30 days are up they would become unavailable.

Yeah right. This is the BBC you're talking about. They had to ask pirates to send them their copies of ancient Doctor Who episodes when they realised there was some value in them.

This isn't quite true. The recipes will remain at URLs, if you know the URLs. However the indexes and searches and so on will no longer exist. Plus new recipes (the BBC has many food programmes) will only be available online for 30 days, not indefinitely.

In other words, the recipes are likely to be archived, not removed.

Existing content is not being destroyed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com