Even if that's the case, this kind of thing should be handled differently (e.g. keep the account, but do some custom thing to down-rank those images in searches or whatever).
Because I think it's bad form to just up and delete data like this, especially something that's about archiving/preservation.
Has the Internet Archive actually made a statement about that? Some Flickr support person claimed they agreed to it in a support thread, but I can imagine a lot of scenarios where there might be an unacceptable amount of spin going on (e.g. Flickr made some unreasonable ultimatum, and IA chose to delete the account instead of accept).
> If this isn't sufficient rationale to delete data, what is?
That the data is truly unwanted.
"The @internetarchive did not ask to take these off of Flickr's site. We do not have any power of them-- it is up to them.
The Images are still in the books that are hosted on https://t.co/NHtWm9GEQu
But I understand Flickr is interested in putting them back up."
https://twitter.com/DonMacAskill/status/1511018079802720256
"To be clear, Flickr didn't delete this. Our friends at the Internet Archive did. It's their account. I don't know all the details, but I believe we've been collaborating with IA on ways to improve the Commons, and I think removing the Books account was part of that effort."
What's that about? Is this meant to cast doubt on the reliability of the speaker?
> I can imagine a lot of scenarios where there might be an unacceptable amount of spin going on
Ok well, I am going to take Flickr's word as stated until I have reason to believe otherwise, I don't see any reason to speculate on arbitrary alternative scenarios, Flickr doesn't have a history of lying about support issues as far as I am aware.
> That the data is truly unwanted.
There's not really a way to reasonably assess if that's the case besides what the owner of the account communicates.
That's not how the OP twitter thread presented it.