Hacker News Reader

All of his arguments boil down to "open web good, twitter bad, ergo LoC shouldn't archive twitter".

With the slight correction that it's "ergo LoC should probably try to archive the web before it tries to archive twitter". But yeah, that's the gist of it. But so what? That doesn't mean it's an invalid argument. In fact, I'm inclined to agree with it.

If they had a good process for archiving blogs on the open web, then I wouldn't have a problem with extending that to Twitter.

Disingenuous.

He said "twitter private, Library of Congress public. Public preference to one of several private corps not in public interest, especially when there is a larger, more archive-worthy corpus that doesn't require private APIs or vendor discrimination".

Which part of that do you disagree with?

I would assume they would want to do both. The advantage to using Twitter is it copy's a wider range of conversation AND it's easy. Set it up and add some server-space and be done with it, where to even start on blogs would require 10x the effort and even more space.

GP is disparaging, but doesn't state any disagreement, his argument boils down to huff puff mumble mumble, get off my lawn.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com