That’s so interesting, Naheem. One school of thought is that since a Twitter stream (or Toot stream) is published by a user, that user should have control over what others see. An aspect of privacy. The other school of thought is that since something has been published to the world, it’s no longer under the control of the author, and others have a right to see what you said previously. My friend David Eastman wrote a blog post a few years ago that I think about often. The idea that the privacy and anonymity we used to experience never needed to be actively thought about, because invading it was always such a hassle for other people. That is, until our lives were digitised (sometimes with our consent, very often without). I think the same is true with regards to the “privacy” of our past. The spectacularly unfunny stuff I wrote as a youth is thankfully lost. It wouldn’t be if I had kept a blog or a Twitter feed in my teens. The EU has a ‘right to be forgotten’ law of course, which speaks to this. For a very short time a decade ago I wondered whether I might stand for election to something. I began to realise that my digital output might, in future years, be scrutinised, and that in turn affected what I wrote and how I wrote it. I’ve given up on such lofty (or stupid) ideas now but am conscious that if anyone will read my digital output in the future, it will likely be my kids (and their kids?) and I want to come across as Not A Dickhead. The point is that awareness of posterity now colours everything I post online. I think it’s subconscious now, and mental state, a way of thinking. It’s fascinating to be reminded that my mental (shall we say) orientation in this regard is a product of design choices by technologists, who may not even realise they’re making choices.