• All, I am currently in the process of migrating domain registrations. During this time there may be some intermittent outages or slowdowns. Please contact staff if you have any questions.

Content Removal Policy

DCurrent

Site Owner, OpenBOR Project Leader
Staff member
From time to time I receive requests to delete member posts. Usually these come in the form of threats from disgruntled members, but also occasionally for various legitimate reasons. Because of this, I feel the need to clarify policy over deleting material.

ChronoCrash members do not have sufficient forum privileges to hard delete information. Furthermore, ChronoCrash maintains a historic archive of all edits. Therefore edit scrubbing to delete material is ineffective, and depending on the situation the member may incur sanctions.

For obvious reasons, we are not likely to honor requests from banned members or other disaffects. We will review other cases as they come and make our decisions based on overall effect to the forum and other factors. In general we try to avoid deleting content. It is disruptive to threads and (in the case of resources) defeats the forum mission. Bulk removing a member's posts is even more unlikely unless we determine the content in question is a net loss to the community. When content is removed, we do so using a soft delete that enables restoration if needed.

What about the GDPR? You have to delete what I say!

No, we do not. First, this forum is owned and housed in the United States. Under precedent set by the case of Garcia vs. Google (Garcia v. google, inc.. 2016), USA based content providers are not obligated to remove user data. Furthermore as a United States based entity, ChronoCrash is not subject to foreign policies such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) unless those policies are honored by regulatory bodies within the USA (currently none do). The only actions available to foreign bodies are blocking access to ChronoCrash within their spheres of influence or filing suits in a US court. The former is an acceptable loss. The latter will be unsuccessful as ChronoCrash is demonstrably forthright in its use of data, and does not target a European market.

It is also notable the GDPR itself does not require removal of content when that content is essential to core functionality. Forum posts qualify as exactly that. In short, members cannot force removal of anything other than specific intellectual properties protected by United States copyright law. Once a member submits content, distribution is fully under the discretion of ChronoCrash.

As with all things, there is almost always some leeway for special cases, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

References​

Garcia v. google, inc.. Harvard Law Review. (2016, April 8). Retrieved December 17, 2021, from Garcia v. Google, Inc.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom