What is the basis for permission to delete questions?
A question for the sake of the sport of flirting, but I’m really interested in the definition. Let’s say that on a certain website where it is possible to ask questions online, someone asked a bad, inappropriate, and all sorts of shameful question that deserves all condemnation and ignoring. What is the formal halachic permission for the owner of the website to delete it? And how is it different from someone who (intentionally) rolls his ball into his friend’s yard, who is obviously forbidden to burn the ball. I thought of a few suggestions: 1 No permission is needed because there is no problem with the deletion, the questioner has not lost anything. 2 There is an implicit condition that the person who asks questions does so at the discretion of the website owner. 3 The annoyance for all readers and the website owner is worse than the annoyance or loss that the questioner will experience. 4 The deletion is also a type of answer and education 5 Deletion is not the loss of something that exists, but only a pause for its renewal on the server
It’s true that it sounds childish, but if the answer is short, maybe you’ll agree to answer.
4
I debated whether to delete this bad question, but I’ll answer briefly anyway. 🙂
Deleting the question does not in any way harm the author’s property. His ideas are with him and he can publish them wherever he wants. Not with me. You can also ask what my permission is to close the windows of my house when there is noise from outside, after all, I deleted the voice of the owner of the noise, Shlita.
The question of what the justification is for doing this and for what reasons it is appropriate or inappropriate is a different question. But the right to delete is absolute.
A bad question, but the answer is also strange. It is clear that one can delete without thinking at all because the questioner intentionally entered his into another authority and there is no point in this discussion. If it entered unintentionally, then the laws of Shabbat loss should be discussed. The answer is strange in both parts: The claim that the ideas remained with the questioner is not enough because the wording may be lost (and the ideas may also be forgotten). Anyone who has something he wrote erased, even when he remembers more or less all the ideas, knows that this is a complete loss. Therefore, the image of blocking noise from entering is also incorrect, both because the noise remains in place and because the action is not in the noise itself. If someone threw a stink bomb into my house, it is clear that I can flush it down the toilet. And even if he threw a perfume bomb at me, I have the right to throw it at him. If he doesn't want me to decide, then he shouldn't push himself into a place that doesn't belong to him, that's all.
This can be likened to an art exhibition (the bedrock of our existence) where some center in the name of some creature hosts artists and their works in the exhibition, and one of the works includes an offensive display for some reason, no one asks the artist to remove the work, but rather goes to the exhibition host to demand that it be removed, etc.
Although there is no dispute that the financial ownership of the work belongs to the artist and creator,
Similarly, a website hosts the works and vanities of the netizens, and the site owner gives space to things he wants to maintain and deletes at will.
At an art exhibition, is the exhibition host allowed to burn the work he decided to remove from the display?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
