Re:Are closed social networks inevitable? (2010)
by test1235 on Thursday October 06, 2016 @06:57AM
(#12651445)
>I'm surprised that big news sites don't seem to have stable links
BBC is an exception to this - the way they publish their news pages means they have articles going back over a decade (with the original styling)
Re:Are closed social networks inevitable? (2010)
by cm3 on Thursday October 06, 2016 @07:55AM
(#12651684)
That's brilliant, and I wouldn't expect anything less from the BBC. They are technically competent and innovated in the broadcasting space, like a few other networks did/do. It surely helped that the BBC have (had?) an R&D department.
Re:Are closed social networks inevitable? (2010)
by 7952 on Thursday October 06, 2016 @07:52AM
(#12651669)
I love how they show the whole page as it was on the day.
Re:Are closed social networks inevitable? (2010)
by gaxun on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @06:50PM
(#12648642)
Just to be clear up front, my site is actively trying to be a demonstration of the ideas I outlined in the above post, in addition to being an actual site. It's still a work in progress and I'm letting it evolve piece by piece. There are many unanswered questions.
> But only after consent from your the sender, right?
I'm struggling to decide the right way to handle this. So far, if the message is substantial and I want to reply for follow-up, I also ask directly for permission. If it is a small message or I otherwise don't end up with consent, I'll remove any personally identifying information and/or paraphrase the message. You can see this in action at [0].
I'd love to know where most people think the proper line is. I usually consider direct email to be a rather private communication channel.
[0] https://www.gaxun.net/commentary/knuth-challenge/comments/
> If I get email related to my site, I often post it to the site.
But only after consent from your the sender, right?