this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
1003 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59562 readers
1981 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's no technical reason they couldn't migrate this data into a new system or otherwise store it for legacy users. This was a direct buisness decision from leadership plain and simple. Hard to watch as people lose such a big part of their lives. Really highlight a greater need for more open forms of social media that can't be destroyed in a whim
There are 3 reasons I can see.
1:
It's a huge change, and they did a dual-implementation however long ago - where they store it in the active legacy system, and also store it in the new inactive system ready for when the switch is flipped.
Do a year of this, changeover flawlessly, and suck up the outrage over lost data.
2:
It's a maybe not such a large change, but the data processing for it is expensive. So, however long is an acceptable cost, and its balanced against user outrage
3:
There was a TOS change. So data before that date can't be sold/monetised, whereas after that date has value.
So, drop the data that costs money, keep the data that can be monetised.
Whatever, it's bullshit.
Glad I left. And glad Lemmy is cool