Living in this age, I’ve always felt comfortable. I never really had a fear that anyone was watching me, using me, or could closely monitor me through the data I had released. Investigating data and its uses never seemed important to me because I wasn’t planning on pursuing a technology-based career and I found that the technology (and data) had made my life more pleasant than the imagined alternative. But as I was reading Hill’s article “Silicon Valley Can’t Be Trusted with Our History”, it occurred to me that I have witnessed so many similar events and merely looked over them.
Most recently, a father is attempting to sue Instagram for the cause of suicide of his daughter. She followed accounts that had graphic images of self harm and related topics. At first glance, it does seem so wrong that Instagram didn’t sensor such dark? Content. Why should anyone be able to discover posts about suicide and self harm on such a platform? But the opposing side makes a point similar to Hill’s: removing this content, removes recognition and hopefully prevention. Many (of course not all) of these types of accounts on Instagram are working to prevent self harm, suicide, etc. If there is no recognition and in society a lot of people will live without information that could prevent harm. Similar to sex ed or conversation around the #Metoo movement, the more we can talk about a topic, the more light we can shed on the topic.
So yes, I think most content should be saved, we shouldn’t delete history, or data that could help someone someday. However, here’s a certain sect that social media that should be censored, whether it's by the government or social media companies. In my definition, this section consists of insensitive, and cruel-spirited violence. Such as, Logan Paul’s suicide forest video. I am in agreement with Hill that we can not delete evidence and important data. Some data will be hard to fathom and it can be dark, scary. But it’s history and having the power to erase that history with a data wipe should be limited.