Flickr support thread with rationale: https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/72157720510495566
IA and Flickrs pent weeks talking about this (according to flickr...), but didn't come to enough understanding that they both agree on what happened?
I'm also curious what happened with the title of this HN post. It currently says "The Internet Archive Book Images has deleted their Flickr account", but apparently originally said something else? Shouldn't the HN post title match the tweet linked, regardless? Under what HN policy do mods change the title to not match what it's linking to?
"Recommending to IA that they delete it was a mistake. Our problem was that the 5M book images were drowning out the rest of the Commons members. So, we are restoring the account, moving it out of the Commons, and placing the book images under CC0, with IA’s permission and support"
Yup, that is exactly what it sounds like. I learned this lesson many years ago, and this is why I no longer devote any significant amount of my time contributing to projects which someone else has the power to pull the plug on.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/albums/7215762251846...
Maybe they sent the IA a bill? And in response to that the IA “deleted their account”…