Server owners have the option for message logging bots. If communities wanted logging, they do have that option with server owner buy-in.
Arguably, difficult-to-archive by default if you aren't a server owner helps foster a safer chat experience.
e.g. your relationship with someone has soured. Your IRC client has your private messages with them saved in a backlog. You can access them at any time. vs. you normally wouldn't save a backlog of messages because Discord remembers your message history, and if their relationship with you has soured, they have the option of nuking their messages.
How is that a feature?
In more general sense, the way I see it, a message does not belong to the sender - the ownership is shared between the communicating parties, and neither one should get to unilaterally delete it for the other, much like when you send me a physical letter, I can't prevent you from making a copy of it prior to sending, but you also can't "unsend" it by taking it out of my mailbox or cupboard.
In more general sense still, I don't like things that can screw with people's sense of reality. At the very least, I hope "unsending" messages leaves a clear sign behind, because removing a message from someone's mailbox without leaving a trace is a stellar way to facilitate intentional or accidental gaslighting.
But I'm rambling again. The main thing that needs to be said:
> knowing that you can delete these messages if your relationship with them starts to deteriorate and they likely wouldn't have access to them
This is just a really bad case of a false sense of security. The other person can always make a screenshot. And if you're known to be a person that unsends their messages, or if this becomes a more common practice in general, then the other party will likely start making screenshots the moment they realize your relationship starts to deteriorate.
The messages still exist. For more serious cases, they can be dredged up from the backups by a court order, so you don't really get to unsend something and pretend it never happened.
Indeed, that's why I'm talking about people who you currently trust, and may not trust in the future. I will agree with you in part that there are situations even with currently trusted parties regarding certain information that it would be preferable that communication is permanent. There are modalities in communication where deletion is a feature and modalities where it isn't.
edit: The situations I'm thinking of where such communication is preferable are less like "divorce-worthy" stuff, and more like "I'm not vibing with person A well rn, I don't like that they like <trivial thing a> and <trivial thing b>", which is relatively low-stakes, but essential to friendship.
edit: here's a context I encountered yesterday; a friend (call them A) realized that some new people joined a Discord server that used to be close friends, and so A deleted their selfie pics. The reasoning (which happens intuitively and emotionally) is that if these people were slightly creepy, then they wouldn't be able to opportunistically abuse A's selfies if/when they started paying attention to A. If these people were massively and actively creepy there would be other avenues to handle that.
Fair. I think a good argument against my current position is the one made by the Black Mirror episode "The Entire History of You"[0]. In fact, I see at least two different strong points made by that episode:
- Everyone having an easily-accessible, high-fidelity, shareable record of the mundane things they saw, heard or said, stretching back years or decades, is something we might not handle well on an interpersonal level. Our cultures, habits and rules of behavior - hell, even default emotional programming - are all built on an implicit assumption that memories are ephemeral, internal, and not indexable. So e.g. any "he said, she said" argument suddenly becomes something else entirely, when either side can pull up a recording of what happened.
- Having such recordings creates a risk of someone wanting to force you to reveal them.
Thinking about that, I concede that having some conversations be ephemeral may be desirable, at least for as long as humans remain so immature that past behavior can be used as a weapon in future arguments.
EDIT to respond to your edits:
> "I'm not vibing with person A well rn, I don't like that they like <trivial thing a> and <trivial thing b>", which is relatively low-stakes, but essential to friendship.
Could you elaborate? I can't see how the ability to unsend messages would be helpful here. If anything, it feel like showing person A the door or giving them a slap in the face - a clear signal the relationship just dropped a few notches.
This reminds me of a case when I realized a certain person unfriended me on Facebook. I wasn't very close personally to that person, but we've spent years building a real-life community together, and we were (or I thought) at the very least good colleagues. I casually mentioned the Facebook thing to that person the next time I bumped into them, and they explained it away as "you know, I'm curating my Facebook friend list, every now and then I unfriend people I haven't talked to in a while; it's nothing personal". Well, it felt quite personal to me, and that explanation made me want to keep the relationship going even less.
> friend (call them A) realized that some new people joined a Discord server that used to be close friends, and so A deleted their selfie pics
Hm. That's a slightly different case though. The problem here is that the selfies weren't sent to people who joined afterwards; them having access to it is a decision made automatically by Discord. If the server was considered closer to a private conversation space, and not a public gallery, then I find it perfectly reasonable that person A wanted to remove those messages - they were trying to retroactively exercise control over who gets the message, something they should've been able to do before the fact.
--
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entire_History_of_You
You have a measurement problem here. Unless you can fast forward to the end of these trustworthy and decedent peoples life and give a quick review as it pertains to you and your information, you have no idea if any of these people are trustworthy at all.
It's an exercise in probability that's impossible to measure.
There has been a use for exploding messages, and there's a use for deletable messages too, despite the screenshottability by zero-trust parties.
If there's someone least entitled to message ownership, IMO it's the sender. To grant the sender the ability to take messages back is to allow them to encroach the "personal space" of the recipient - to make unilateral changes to the sphere of reality they considers their own.
Physical analogy: to "unsend" a letter, you'd have to break into my house and steal it.
Digital analogy: to "unsend" an e-mail, you'd have to break into my computer / mail server and delete it there.
"Unsending" e-mail exists in corporate (organizational in general) contexts, but this is tied to an artificial environment following a much different sense of rules - those e-mails aren't truly yours, they're the property of the company (org) as part of which you're communicating. In the same way, corporate might let you "unsend" a physical letter too, at least internally. But this is an exception, tied to acting as an agent of an organization; private communications have different defaults.
Also in general, as I mentioned in another branch of this subthread, I don't like solutions that let someone mess with someone else's perception of reality. "Unsending" is doing exactly that, so at the very least, it must not be silent - it must always leave a visible mark. "There was a message here. It was removed by the sender."
> Digital analogy: to "unsend" an e-mail, you'd have to break into my computer / mail server and delete it there.
They're not on your computer or mail server though. They're on discords servers, which grant you permission to view them upon you providing credentials to prove you're allowed to see them. Removing the message is removing your access to content I have authored and previously granted.
It wouldn't be weird for me to remove a blog or mastadon post of my own, yet those are very clearly one to many communications. If I hosted a page and gave you login details which I later rescinded, that wouldn't seem odd would it?
None of these are conceptually all that different though. I write a thing and let you read it. I later don't want you to allow you to read it any more. Having granted access once, must that always translate to permanent irrevocable permission? That seems like an extreme position - the most obvious place that comes up is with mistakes. I mistakenly "send" a message to you intended for my wife. Do you have a permanent and fundamental right to it? If you've not even seen a notification that it's arrived, is it encroaching on your personal space for you to not be able to read a message I don't want you to read?
But that's more of a forum or a publication than an interpersonal communication. I think when you and I talk, we both own the content. The conversation is two-way, and thus it is ours. You have no right to take those conversations from my email server any more than removing them from my mind.
It's not about one-to-one or one-to-many, it's about is the conversation one-way or two-way. Are you talking to someone or with them?
In this context, I feel it's OK for GP to remove their blog or Mastodon posts - not weird at all. However, I believe I am well within my rights to scrap GP's blog, screenshot all their Mastodon posts, and keep them for reference; I'd expect the blog to be indexed by the Internet Archive, and would find attempts at preventing the IA from making a copy as something between peculiar and antisocial.
That is, there's a distinction between owning the message itself, vs. owning its physical form or means of publishing. The former, I believe, is always shared between sender and recipient or recipients (up to and including everyone, if we're talking about a regular website without any access control). The latter is handled through normal property law mechanisms, but owning the medium only means you can decide who can access the message on/through that medium, not that you own the message itself.
Why not discord messages then?
By the why the physical universe you live in works the moment you let someone see an informational project (text for example) you no longer have a monopoly on that information. You can never remove access of that data from my mind, and with digital information under a end to end encrypted channel (and assuming you're not watching it with an OCR application from a monitor) you can't remove access to any other allowed person.
You have an extreme position, yes. It is extreme in the sense your idea only works in highly controlled situations or where everybody agrees to play nice. These rules do not work on the internet and there is no means or way of enforcing it.
Once you let photons go, you no longer have a permanent and fundamental right to recall it.
If only we could admit that about copyrighted work.
Laws tend to vary quite a bit, but around here (not US or a lawyer, get your legal advice from someone else), you're allowed to record phone calls without mentioning it beforehand as long as you're a participant in the call itself.
Basically the law surrounding phone call recordings suggests that for all intents and purposes, that right belongs to both entities independently. I'd apply the same to chat messages; the right to store them without prior consent belongs effectively to both parties.
Note however, that the law around mail and postal services suggests no such thing - on the contrary, once you send something, you lose your rights to it; you may have some residual rights for the duration of delivery, since the post is performing a service for you, but once the mail reaches its destination, its owned by the recipient.
Chat messages derive from physical mail, not phone calls, so I'd apply postal rather than telecom perspective here. Phone calls are in some sense unique here: in its first widespread form, making a phone call meant creating a literal, direct electrical connection between your microphone and a speaker on the other end - an unbroken conduit going for dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of kilometers - in order to "teleport" the sound waves by means of converting mechanical waves to electrical waves, and back again at the other end - allowing to have a conversation across distance by pretending it isn't there. Those first phone calls were direct evolution of spoken conversation - as opposed to written messages, whose analogues were sent over a telegraph.
Thus, in my mind, the right framework to think about IM chats and e-mails alike is through analogy to written letters and "snail mail" (if you really insist e-mails and IMs are not alike, then treat e-mails as similar to letters, and IM chats as similar to tiny notes passed around in the class by children, while the teacher is not looking). For phone calls, the right analogy is conversation. That extends to VOIP, Teams calls, Mumble/Teamspeak, etc. If you want digital voice communication that has semantics of mail, and not conversation, then we have that too: it's called voice messages, and is a feature in most IM platforms.
To spell out clearly what that last point means to me: mutual consent for call recording sounds reasonable. But if you send me a voice recording over Messenger or WhatsApp, to me it's just as if you sent a normal chat - and therefore something that I'm free to back up without your consent or even without informing you.
Chat messages are not physical things and trying to apply laws that are based on important distinctions with regards to physical things to features in an application is not useful. Even then, you can still send someone something but retain rights over it.
> Those first phone calls were direct evolution of spoken conversation
Frankly I find it a little weird that a fast back and forth chat on discord over the internet is being likened more to sending a physical bit of paper with delays of multiple days per message than a chat over the phone.
First letter: Hi. Do you have a minute
Reply: Yes. What is it?
Second letter: I've got a problem.
Reply: Is this on the new product?
And it's a week later.
The name of it is even a chat message. To say chat messages are not like a chat is weird to me just because they're not audio files.
I strongly think either comparison is irrelevant but I'm quite surprised at the distinction you're trying to draw.
Worth remembering what the start of this was though, which was that deleting messages on discords servers was described as a feature.
Nobody even reads those things anyways. What they "allow" doesn't matter either. As users we should be able to do whatever we want. If we want to log messages, that's our prerogative.
If I were in a relationship that went bad, and the other person was as vengeful and irrational as you can imagine, and had access to everything I ever said, and did their best to cherry pick and strip context, sure, that would be annoying for me.
And it would be no worse than annoying. I'll take that hit considering the kinds of things that other people do to other people.
I'm clairvoiant, so go ahead and say it's about protecting gays in gay-murderering states. Perhaps you assume the only reason I take this stance is that I have nothing that I think could be weaponized against me.
What kinds of things have you done in your relationships that you fear your past relations so much?
Any way you slice it, wrong victim.
At the end of the day the last thing discord cares about realistically is keeping their users "safe" anyway (and rightfully so in my opinion).