> or in private.

Not sure how email is an answer. It sound like the rule is "don't do/say it at all, if you didn't want it to be public."

In a sense. My point is, you cannot have public conversations and then be aghast when they are stored or captured for later retrieval and critique. That's not a logistics and storage issue, that's a breakdown of critical thinking and nuance in the public sphere (where rational participants would view a tweet or tweet discussion contextually and within the time it occurred, as opposed to present day outrage porn fuel).

The archiving should happen, even if the corpus must go into cold storage ("unavailable to the public") until a time more reasonable, civil discourse over the contents can occur, but those who participate in online conversations should do so cautiously for obvious reasons.

Tangentially, "never put something in writing you wouldn't want to see on the front page of a newspaper" is just good life advice. Have a phone call or in person meeting instead.

It used to be that a private conversation with another person was private. At worst, it was "one person's word against another" so you could operate on a basis of "don't write it down" if you wanted something to be private.

Not sure how much longer that will be the case. People will soon be walking around with the personal equivalant of a police officer's body camera, always on, recording every moment and every interaction with another person.

I would be reluctant, and probably refuse to talk to anyone wearing such a device, but it won't be long before it's not even obvious.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if, at some point, a lot of people routinely wear some sort of AR when out in public. It's possible there will be widespread social pushback (i.e. the Glasshole factor). But I wouldn't bet on it if such a thing were genuinely comfortable and useful.