SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Starting on Jan. 1, 2018, the U.S. Library of Congress will only archive Twitter selectively, instead of nearly completely:
Since 2010, Library of Congress has been archiving every single public tweet: Yours, ours, the president's. But today, the institution announced it will no longer archive every one of our status updates, opinion threads, and "big if true"s. As of Jan. 1, the library will only acquire tweets "on a very selective basis."
The library says it began archiving tweets "for the same reason it collects other materials – to acquire and preserve a record of knowledge and creativity for Congress and the American people." The archive stretches back to Twitter's beginning, in 2006.
But as anyone who's been following along can attest, Twitter and the way it's used has changed since then. First and foremost from a collection perspective: the sheer number of tweets.
"The volume of tweets and related transactions has evolved and increased dramatically since the initial agreement was signed," the library explains in a white paper accompanying the accouncement[sic].
The library doesn't say how many tweets [it] has in its collection now, but in 2013, it said it had already amassed 170 billion tweets, at a rate of half a billion tweets a day.
[...] Another issue: Twitter only gives the library the text of tweets – not images, videos, or linked content. "Tweets now are often more visual than textual, limiting the value of text-only collecting," the library says.
The library also has to figure out how to effectively manage deleted tweets, which aren't part of the archive.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by meustrus on Wednesday December 27 2017, @05:00PM (7 children)
It's really curious that they decided to do this during a presidency that communicates to the public largely via Twitter. Is this intended to provide an historical smokescreen against public reaction to Trump's tweets? Or is that just incidental?
I'd really like to see some rules about this selection process, but there are no details provided. As far as I can tell, the government has decided to limit its existing collection practices to whatever it feels like collecting.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by fishybell on Wednesday December 27 2017, @05:21PM (1 child)
Thank you for the reference lacking, primary source lacking, information.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday December 27 2017, @07:47PM
Follow me on Twitter and find out how I'm Making America Great Again! @realDonaldTrump [twitter.com] 🇺🇸
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday December 27 2017, @05:39PM
Probably a coincidence, but it is an interesting concept. Of course, they never had to take all tweets in the first place, but since they started I wonder if anyplace else is trying something similar (Internet Archive? Something else?)
I'm sure they'll have standards and if researchers are actually going to query the data they'll have to know what the new limits are. But AFAIK, the LoC has always had carte blanche in determining what it thinks is necessary to preserve. Somehow I doubt that the two Stradivarius violins they have (per Wikipedia) will ever be used in a CBO study. ;)
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Wednesday December 27 2017, @05:58PM (3 children)
The synopsis says:
As much as I find him an annoyance, I am sure the "selective" archive will be inclusive of our elected officials.
So, I am sure that they will continue to archive Trump's tweets.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday December 27 2017, @06:35PM (2 children)
I'm glad we could get official confirmation from the well-known government representative "stretch611". Your confidence in our government to do the right thing sets my mind at ease. And by extending this logic, I can be sure that the "selective" archive will include all citizen responses and references to Trump as well.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:57PM
Citizens are not the president, so their responses don't matter. Do you think future historians really care about the ramblings of assorted transexual millennial SJWs? No. What matters is what the president tweets because he's more important.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Thursday December 28 2017, @06:16AM
I am a government official... Now be sure to send me a money order made out to "CASH" to pay your back taxes and penalties
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P