Chapter 9: The Custodial Filter — Ethics of Preservation
Opening: The Archivist's Dilemma
In 2018, a digital archivist received an anonymous hard drive in the mail. No return address, no note. Just a drive containing 50GB of data from a defunct online forum for survivors of domestic abuse.
The forum had shut down three years earlier when its volunteer admin burned out. No backup was ever released publicly. The community scattered, their stories lost. Until this drive appeared.
The archivist faced impossible questions:
Should she preserve this? - For: This is crucial documentation of survivor experiences, mutual aid networks, and trauma recovery - Against: People shared deeply personal stories under usernames, expecting privacy and eventual deletion
If she preserves it, who gets access? - Open access: Researchers, journalists, the public—but risks outing survivors, exposing vulnerabilities - Restricted access: Researchers only—but who decides who qualifies? - No access: Preserve but seal for 50 years—but then why preserve at all?
Can she even contact the original posters? - Most used pseudonyms - Forum email addresses are dead - No way to get consent
What about the abusers mentioned in posts? - Some are named explicitly - Preserving could be evidence—or could be defamation - Do alleged abusers have privacy rights?
She sat with this drive for months, paralyzed. Every choice felt wrong.
This is the custodial burden—the weight of deciding what gets remembered and what gets forgotten, who gets privacy and who gets accountability, what serves history and what causes harm.
This chapter provides frameworks for navigating these impossible choices. Not easy answers (there are none), but ethical methodologies for thinking through preservation dilemmas systematically.
Part I: The Philosophy of Custodianship
What It Means to Be a Custodian
When you preserve a digital artifact, you become its custodian—responsible for its care, its interpretation, and its future.
This isn't neutral work. Preservation is an ethical act that:
1. Shapes Memory - What you save becomes the historical record - What you don't save is forgotten - You're deciding what future generations can know
2. Distributes Power - Preservation gives voice to some, denies it to others - Archives have historically elevated powerful voices, erased marginalized ones - Your choices can reproduce or resist these patterns
3. Affects Living People - Digital artifacts often involve people still alive - Preservation can help (documentation, accountability) or harm (privacy violations, retraumatization) - You must weigh these consequences
4. Encodes Values - Every triage decision reflects what you think matters - Cultural significance, consent, public interest—these are value judgments - Your ethics become embedded in the archive
The Custodial Paradox
Custodianship involves fundamental tensions:
Preservation vs. Privacy - Historians want everything preserved; individuals want to be forgotten - Both have legitimate claims
Accountability vs. Compassion - Preserving evidence holds wrongdoers accountable - But people change; permanent records can be punitive
Comprehensiveness vs. Harm Reduction - Saving everything maximizes historical value - But some artifacts cause ongoing harm by existing
Present Consent vs. Future Value - People may not want something preserved now - But it might be historically crucial in 50 years
There are no formulas for resolving these tensions. Only frameworks for deliberation.
Part II: The Custodial Filter — Five Ethical Questions
The Custodial Filter (introduced in Chapter 5) is a systematic approach to preservation ethics. Before preserving any artifact, ask:
Question 1: Cultural Significance
Does this artifact matter?
This seems simple but is deeply contested. Who decides what "matters"?
The Traditional Canon Problem
Historically, archives preserved: - Elite voices (wealthy, educated, politically powerful) - Official records (government, corporations) - Dominant cultures (Western, white, male perspectives)
Marginalized communities were systematically erased: - LGBTQ+ lives (destroyed as "obscene") - Indigenous knowledge (dismissed as "primitive") - Working-class culture (seen as "low value") - Women's private writings (deemed "trivial")
Result: History is biased toward the powerful. Archives reflect and reinforce this.
Decolonizing Significance
New approach: Prioritize voices historically excluded: - Marginalized communities (LGBTQ+, disabled, immigrant, Indigenous) - Grassroots movements (mutual aid, activism, subcultures) - Everyday life (not just "important" people) - Dissent (voices challenging power)
Principle: If an artifact documents an underrepresented community or challenges dominant narratives, significance increases.
Community-Defined Significance
Best practice: Ask the community that created content whether it matters.
Example: Trans Archive Project (Hypothetical)
An archivist wants to preserve trans people's early YouTube videos (2006-2010). Before doing so, she: 1. Contacts trans creators (where possible) 2. Asks trans community members whether this is valuable 3. Prioritizes what the community identifies as significant (not what she assumes)
Result: Preserves what trans people themselves think matters, not what outsiders imagine.
Challenge: Communities aren't monolithic. Trans people will disagree about what's important. Archivist must navigate plural perspectives.
Significance Over Time
What seems trivial today may be crucial tomorrow: - Social media posts seem ephemeral, but document social movements (Arab Spring, #BlackLivesMatter) - Memes seem silly, but reflect cultural anxieties and political discourse - Personal blogs seem niche, but record lived experiences
Principle: When uncertain, over-preserve. You can always restrict access later, but you can't un-lose deleted data.
Question 2: Consent
Did the creator agree to preservation?
This is the hardest question because digital culture blurs public/private boundaries.
The Consent Spectrum
Explicit Consent: - Creator explicitly licensed work for reuse (Creative Commons, public domain) - Creator posted on platform with preservation-friendly TOS - Creator contacted and agreed to archiving
Implied Consent: - Content posted publicly on open web - Platform TOS mentioned archiving (even if users didn't read it) - Content was public for years before platform died
Ambiguous: - Content was public but creator expected ephemerality (tweets, Snapchat stories) - Content was "friends-only" but platform made it hard to truly restrict access - Creator deleted it, but copies survived elsewhere
No Consent / Violated Consent: - Private content leaked without permission - Content creator explicitly deleted (signal of wanting it forgotten) - Content posted in contexts with strong privacy norms (support groups, medical forums)
When to Preserve Without Consent
Sometimes, preserving without consent is justified:
1. Public Figures and Accountability
Politicians, CEOs, and public figures have reduced privacy expectations: - Their statements are newsworthy - Public has interest in holding them accountable - Deleting tweets shouldn't erase the record
Example: Politician tweets racist statement, then deletes it. Archiving without consent is justified—accountability trumps desire to forget.
2. Historical Significance
Sometimes historical value outweighs individual privacy: - Documentation of major events (9/11, Arab Spring) - Evidence of corporate or government wrongdoing - Records of marginalized communities (with care)
Guideline: The more significant, the more consent can be overridden—but never lightly.
3. Abandoned Content
If creator is unreachable (platform dead, email bounces, user vanished): - Reasonable assumption: content is effectively abandoned - Preservation prevents loss - But: Add opt-out mechanism (if someone emerges claiming it, they can request removal)
When NOT to Preserve Without Consent
1. Private Content Leaked
Hacked emails, leaked DMs, stolen nudes—these should not be preserved, even if newsworthy: - Privacy violation is harm - Preserving perpetuates harm - Journalistic value doesn't justify violation
Exception: If content reveals serious wrongdoing (corruption, abuse) and no other evidence exists—then restricted-access preservation with redactions might be justified. Case-by-case.
2. Content Explicitly Deleted
If a creator intentionally deleted something (not platform-deleted), that's a signal: - They regret it - They want it forgotten - Preserving against their will is disrespectful
Exception: Public figures, accountability cases (as above)
3. Vulnerable Populations
Children, abuse survivors, people in crisis—their consent is especially important: - Power imbalances may have coerced original posting - Ongoing harm from exposure (stalking, harassment) - Trauma from being unable to escape past
Guideline: Err on the side of respecting deletion/privacy for vulnerable people.
The Consent Trade-off
Ideal: Get explicit consent from everyone. In practice, this is often impossible: - Platforms shut down quickly (no time to contact thousands of users) - Users are pseudonymous (can't find them) - Users are dead
Pragmatic approach: 1. Prioritize consent when possible (contact creators if reachable) 2. Assume implied consent for truly public content (but allow opt-out) 3. Restrict access for ambiguous cases (preserve but don't make public) 4. Don't preserve clear violations (leaked private content, explicit deletion by vulnerable people)
Question 3: Harm Assessment
Does preserving this artifact cause harm?
Some content, even if historically significant, causes ongoing harm by continuing to exist.
Types of Harm
1. Direct Physical Harm
Content that enables violence: - Doxxing (addresses, phone numbers enabling stalking) - Revenge porn (non-consensual intimate images) - Terrorist manifestos with actionable plans - Harassment campaigns coordinating attacks
Principle: Do not preserve content that directly facilitates physical harm, even if "historically significant."
2. Psychological Harm
Content that retraumatizes: - Graphic violence (mass shooting videos, lynchings) - Child sexual abuse material (never preserve, illegal) - Intimate details of trauma shared in private contexts, now exposed
Guideline: Preserve metadata (that it existed, summary of what it was) but not the content itself. Document without reproducing harm.
3. Reputational Harm
Old content that unfairly damages someone: - Youthful mistakes preserved forever (teenagers doing dumb things) - False accusations or rumors - Outdated views the person has disavowed
Trade-off: Reputational harm vs. accountability - If person is public figure and content shows pattern of behavior → preserve (accountability) - If person is private individual and content is isolated incident → consider deletion (compassion)
4. Systemic Harm
Content that perpetuates oppression: - Hate speech that normalizes violence against marginalized groups - Misinformation that undermines public health (anti-vax, COVID denial) - Propaganda that radicalizes (extremist recruitment material)
Complex Calculation: - Preserving for research (understanding radicalization) has value - But making it accessible can spread harm - Solution: Very restricted access, redactions, content warnings
Harm Mitigation Strategies
If you decide to preserve harmful content (for historical/research value), mitigate harm:
1. Restricted Access - Researchers only (require IRB approval) - Time embargo (seal for X years) - Gated access (application process, vetting)
2. Redactions - Remove personal information (addresses, phone numbers) - Blur faces in videos/photos - Anonymize user names (if not public figures)
3. Contextualization - Content warnings (trigger warnings for traumatic material) - Historical context (explain why this existed, what it reveals) - Counter-narratives (provide resources challenging harmful content)
4. Opt-Out Systems - Allow people to request removal - Regularly review and honor takedown requests - Transparent process for appeals
Example: Hate Forum Archive
A researcher wants to preserve a white supremacist forum (to study radicalization):
Harm Assessment: - Direct harm: Forum coordinated harassment (yes, harmful) - Psychological harm: Racist content traumatizes targets (yes) - Systemic harm: Normalizes white supremacy (yes)
Preservation Decision: Yes, but highly restricted - Archive content (research value) - Redact personal info of victims - Researcher access only (IRB required) - Content warnings throughout - Provide to hate-monitoring orgs (ADL, SPLC) but not public
Harm Mitigation: - Not searchable by Google (no SEO amplification) - Context: explain why preserved, what it reveals about extremism - Counter-resources: link to deradicalization materials
Question 4: Redundancy
Is someone else already preserving this?
If multiple institutions have copies, your effort might be better spent elsewhere.
Checking for Redundancy
Internet Archive's Wayback Machine: - Search for URL: has it been crawled? - How many snapshots? How recent? - Are snapshots complete (images, JavaScript, embedded media)?
Library of Congress Web Archive: - US government sites, some social media (Twitter) - Check their collections
University Archives: - Many universities archive specific topics (LGBTQ+ history, political movements) - Contact university libraries
Community Archives: - Fan archives, activist archives, diaspora archives - Often underfunded but comprehensive within niche
Individual Creators: - Did creators back up their own content? - Many YouTubers, bloggers, podcasters have local copies
When Redundancy Is Valuable
Even if something is archived elsewhere, you might still preserve if:
1. Different Preservation Methods - Internet Archive: breadth (millions of sites, shallow scraping) - You: depth (one community, rich metadata, contextualization)
2. Institutional Fragility - If existing archive is at risk (unstable organization, no long-term funding) - Redundancy = resilience (LOCKSS: "Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe")
3. Access Differences - Existing archive is restricted; yours could be open - Or vice versa: existing archive is too open; yours provides privacy protections
4. Format/Quality Differences - Existing archive has low-quality captures (missing images, broken interactivity) - You can improve preservation fidelity
When to Defer
If artifact is already well-preserved by stable institutions with good access: - Deprioritize (spend your time on endangered, unarchived material) - Contribute to existing effort (add metadata, fix errors) rather than duplicate
Principle: Maximize coverage of endangered material; minimize duplication of secure material.
Question 5: Feasibility and Resource Allocation
Can you realistically preserve this, and is it the best use of resources?
Ethics isn't just about right vs. wrong—it's about triage under scarcity.
Resource Constraints
You have limited: - Time (especially in crisis preservation) - Storage (servers, hard drives cost money) - Expertise (technical skills for complex preservation) - Legal capacity (some preservation risks lawsuits)
Ethical question: Given these limits, how do you allocate effort?
The Trolley Problem of Triage
Scenario: You have 48 hours before a platform shuts down. You can:
Option A: Preserve 10,000 posts from marginalized creators (high cultural value, small volume)
Option B: Preserve 1,000,000 posts representative sample of entire platform (lower per-post value, but comprehensive dataset)
Option C: Preserve 100 at-risk posts (doxxing targets, abuse survivors) that will cause harm if platform dies and they lose control of deletion
Which do you choose?
No right answer. Depends on: - Your mission (community-focused? Comprehensive? Harm reduction?) - Others' efforts (is anyone doing A, B, or C?) - Your skills (do you have tools for bulk scraping? Or deep curation?)
Ethical Triage Principles
1. Prioritize the Endangered - Things no one else is saving > things already archived - Imminently disappearing > stable but declining
2. Prioritize the Unrepresented - Marginalized voices > mainstream voices (mainstream is already over-preserved)
3. Prioritize Harm Reduction - If failure to preserve causes direct harm (loss of evidence, destruction of community records), prioritize
4. Be Transparent About Trade-offs - Document what you chose NOT to save and why - Let others second-guess your decisions (transparency enables correction)
5. Accept Imperfection - You will make mistakes - Some precious artifacts will be lost - This is tragic but unavoidable
Grief is part of the work.
Part III: Case Studies in Custodial Ethics
Case Study 1: The Tumblr NSFW Purge (2018)
Background: - Tumblr banned all "adult content" (2018) - Millions of posts deleted (LGBTQ+ content, art, sex education, sex work portfolios) - 48-hour warning before purge began
Custodial Dilemma:
Should archivists preserve purged content?
Arguments FOR: - Cultural significance (LGBTQ+ history, sex-positive community) - Censorship resistance (corporate shouldn't decide what's "obscene") - Creators losing work (artists, educators, sex workers losing portfolios)
Arguments AGAINST: - Consent ambiguous (some creators chose not to self-archive, signal they wanted it gone?) - Adult content has complex consent (performers may not want redistribution) - Legal risk (some purged content may have been illegal, archivists don't want liability)
What Actually Happened: - Some archivists saved portions (restricted access, research use only) - Many creators self-archived (exported own blogs before purge) - Much was permanently lost
Ethical Assessment: - Mistake: Archivists were too cautious (legal fears prevented rescue) - Lesson: Should have preserved more aggressively, with restricted access - Better approach: Preserve everything, then tier access (public for general posts, restricted for adult content, opt-out for anyone requesting)
Case Study 2: The January 6 Insurrection Videos (2021)
Background: - Capitol insurrection (Jan 6, 2021) - Participants livestreamed and posted videos - Many later deleted content (realizing it was incriminating evidence)
Custodial Dilemma:
Should archivists preserve deleted insurrection videos?
Arguments FOR: - Historical significance (major political event) - Accountability (participants committed crimes, videos are evidence) - Public interest (understanding extremism, documenting attempted coup)
Arguments AGAINST: - Creators deleted them (wanted them forgotten) - Privacy (even criminals have some privacy rights?) - Amplification (preserving could glorify insurrection)
What Actually Happened: - ProPublica, FBI, and others archived extensively - Parler (platform used) was scraped before it went offline - Videos used as evidence in prosecutions
Ethical Assessment: - Correct: Public figures committing crimes have no privacy expectation - Accountability trumps deletion (deleted evidence doesn't erase wrongdoing) - Historical value high (future generations must understand this event)
BUT: Nuance Required - Bystanders' faces should be blurred (not all participants, some just present) - Victims' identities protected (Capitol police officers, staff) - Context added (this was a coup attempt, not a legitimate protest)
Case Study 3: The GeoCities Rescue (2009)
Background: - GeoCities shutdown (2009, 3 weeks warning) - Archive Team scraped 650GB (fraction of total) - No time to contact creators for consent
Custodial Dilemma:
Preserving without consent—ethical?
Arguments FOR: - Cultural significance (early web history, millions of voices) - Abandonment (most sites hadn't been updated in years; creators gone) - Historical value (documenting 1990s-2000s internet culture)
Arguments AGAINST: - No consent (couldn't contact millions of users) - Privacy violations (personal info, old photos, embarrassing content) - Context collapse (sites made for small audiences, now exposed to anyone)
What Actually Happened: - Archive Team scraped publicly accessible sites - Posted as downloadable torrent - Many former GeoCities users grateful (recovered lost memories) - Some users upset (wanted sites to die with platform)
Ethical Assessment: - On balance, correct: Historical value high, consent impossible to obtain, default to preservation - Could improve: Better opt-out system (allow people to request removal from torrent/online archives) - Lesson: When consent is impossible and significance is high, preserve—but build in takedown processes
Case Study 4: The Survivor Forum Hard Drive (Opening Scenario)
Background: Domestic abuse survivor forum (defunct 3 years), hard drive anonymously mailed to archivist
Custodial Dilemma:
What should archivist do?
Options:
Option A: Destroy - Private content, no consent, trauma risk - Survivors have right to privacy - Let it die with the forum
Option B: Preserve but Seal - Lock it away for 50 years - Protects privacy now, allows future access - But: Why preserve if no one can use it?
Option C: Restricted Research Access - Give to trauma researchers, domestic violence orgs - Could help others, inform policy - But: Still violates privacy of posters
Option D: Try to Contact Posters - Track down users (if possible), ask consent - Respect their wishes individually - But: Contacting could retraumatize, or alert abusers to their mentions
Ethical Analysis:
Competing Values: - Privacy (posters expected confidentiality) - Historical value (documents survivor experiences, mutual aid networks) - Potential benefit (research could help other survivors) - Harm risk (exposure could endanger people)
Recommendation: Option B or C (Preserve but Restrict)
Reasoning: 1. Destroy (A) loses valuable data (survivor narratives are historically underrepresented) 2. Public access is wrong (clear privacy violation) 3. Restricted access balances values: - Preserve for future (historical value) - Protect privacy (researchers must apply, IRB oversight) - Allow opt-out (if users emerge, they can request removal) 4. Seal (B) or Research Access (C) depends on: - How identifiable are users? (If highly identifiable → seal) - How urgent is research need? (If active crisis → research access)
If choosing C (research access): - Require IRB approval - Redact identifying info (usernames, locations, specific details) - Content warnings - Share only with trauma-informed researchers - Partner with domestic violence organizations (they can advise on safety)
Lesson: When in doubt, preserve but restrict. You can always open access later (with community input), but you can't un-lose destroyed data.
Part IV: Building Institutional Ethics Frameworks
Creating a Preservation Ethics Policy
If you're building an archive or preservation organization, codify your ethical approach:
1. Mission and Values Statement
Example: "We preserve LGBTQ+ digital culture to ensure queer histories are not erased. We prioritize: - Community consent and self-determination - Marginalized voices over mainstream narratives - Harm reduction and privacy protection - Transparency in our preservation decisions"
2. Preservation Criteria
What will you preserve? - Cultural significance (how defined?) - Community connection (must be created by/for LGBTQ+ people?) - Time period (all eras, or specific focus?) - Content types (text, images, video, all of the above?)
3. Consent Policy
How do you handle consent? - Ideal: Explicit consent from creators - Pragmatic: Implied consent for public content, with opt-out - Restricted: Preserve sensitive material with limited access - Never: No consent-violating leaks, private messages, stolen data
4. Access Tiers
Who can see what?
Tier 1: Public Access - Fully public material, no privacy concerns - Searchable, downloadable
Tier 2: Researcher Access - Apply for access, state research purpose - IRB approval if studying human subjects
Tier 3: Community Access Only - Only LGBTQ+ researchers/community members - Protects community autonomy
Tier 4: Sealed - Preserved but not accessible (yet) - Time embargo (open in X years)
5. Takedown and Appeal Process
How do people request removal? - Submit request via form - Review by ethics committee - Decision within 30 days - Appeal process if denied
Automatic takedown for: - Non-consensual intimate images - Doxxing (personal addresses, phone numbers) - Minors depicted (if requestor is the minor, now adult)
6. Ethical Review Board
Who makes hard decisions? - Staff members + community advisors + ethicists - Meets monthly to review contested cases - Decisions documented and published (redacted for privacy)
Example: Internet Archive's Approach (Simplified)
Mission: Universal access to knowledge
Consent: Respect robots.txt (if site owner says "don't crawl," they don't)
Access: Public by default
Takedown: Submit DMCA or personal information removal request, reviewed within days
Strengths: - Simple, clear - Respects technical consent signals (robots.txt) - Fast takedown process
Limitations: - Doesn't proactively consider harm - Public default may violate privacy norms - Legal framework (DMCA) ≠ ethical framework
Better model would add: - Ethics board for ambiguous cases - Proactive harm assessment (don't wait for takedown requests) - Tiered access for sensitive material
Part V: Personal Ethics for Individual Archivists
Your Own Custodial Ethics
If you're preserving as an individual (not an institution), you still need ethical frameworks:
1. Know Your Biases
Reflect: - What do I think is important? (And what am I overlooking?) - Whose voices am I centered? (Am I reproducing mainstream biases?) - What communities do I have connections to? (And which am I an outsider to?)
Action: - Actively seek out marginalized perspectives - Defer to community members on what matters - Recognize your limitations
2. Build in Consent Where Possible
Steps: - If preserving someone's work, try to contact them - If contact is impossible, assume consent for public content but allow opt-out - If content is borderline (public but privacy-sensitive), err on side of restriction
3. Document Your Decisions
Keep a log: - What did you preserve and why? - What did you skip and why? - What ethical dilemmas arose? - How did you resolve them?
Reasons: - Transparency (others can critique your choices) - Learning (you'll improve over time by reviewing past decisions) - Accountability (if someone challenges you, you have reasoning)
4. Seek Input
Don't decide alone: - Join communities of practice (Archive Team, preservation forums) - Ask others for advice on hard cases - Accept that you'll make mistakes, be open to correction
5. Provide Escape Hatches
Build in ways for people to undo your preservation: - Public contact info (email, form) for takedown requests - Honor requests promptly and without judgment - Apologize when you get it wrong
Part VI: When Preservation Is Wrong
Artifacts That Should Not Be Preserved
Some content should be actively destroyed, not preserved:
1. Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM)
Never preserve. Full stop. - Illegal - Victimizes children - No historical or research value that justifies harm
If you encounter: Report to NCMEC (National Center for Missing & Exploited Children), delete immediately.
2. Non-Consensual Intimate Images (NCII / "Revenge Porn")
Never preserve. - Severe privacy violation - Ongoing harm to victims - Criminal in many jurisdictions
If you encounter: Delete, report to platform or law enforcement if active
3. Doxxing That Endangers Lives
Do not preserve if: - Content includes personal addresses, phone numbers - Clear intent to enable harassment or violence - Victim is at active risk
Exception: If part of larger newsworthy event (Jan 6 insurrection), redact personal info but preserve rest
4. Terrorist Manifestos with Actionable Plans
Do not preserve if: - Detailed instructions for violence - Clear intent to inspire copycat attacks - Ongoing threat
Exception: Preserve metadata (that it existed, summary) without full content. Work with law enforcement if actively dangerous.
5. Content Explicitly Illegal in Your Jurisdiction
Know the law: - Some countries ban Holocaust denial, hate speech - US has broader speech protections (but CSAM, true threats are still illegal)
If in doubt: Consult lawyer before preserving
Conclusion: The Weight of the Gavel
When you preserve, you wield power. You decide what future generations remember. You shape who gets voice and who gets silence. You determine what harms are perpetuated and what accountability is enabled.
This is not a burden to take lightly.
The Custodial Filter gives you structure for these decisions—five questions that force ethical deliberation: 1. Does this matter? (Cultural significance) 2. Do people consent? (Consent) 3. Does preserving cause harm? (Harm assessment) 4. Is someone else doing this? (Redundancy) 5. Can I realistically do this? (Feasibility)
But structure isn't certainty. You will face dilemmas where all options feel wrong. You will make mistakes. You will carry the weight of artifacts you couldn't save and artifacts you shouldn't have saved.
This is the custodial burden.
Accept it. Feel it. Let it make you careful. But don't let it paralyze you.
Because the alternative—doing nothing—is also an ethical choice. And when platforms murder culture, doing nothing is complicity.
So preserve. But preserve ethically. Save what matters, respect those who don't want to be saved, restrict access when harm is possible, document your reasoning, and build escape hatches.
Be a custodian who wields power with humility, who makes hard choices transparently, and who accepts accountability for the consequences.
The gavel is heavy. Carry it anyway.
In the next chapter, we explore the Triage Workflow—the eight-step process for moving from discovery to preservation to access. Now that we understand the ethics, we'll learn the systematic methodology.
Discussion Questions
1. The Survivor Forum: What would you have done with the domestic abuse survivor forum hard drive? Justify your choice using the Custodial Filter.
2. Consent Boundaries: Where do you draw the line? At what point does historical significance override individual desire to be forgotten?
3. Personal Bias: What are your own biases about what's "important" to preserve? How do those biases shape what gets remembered?
4. Harm Weighing: How do you weigh potential future research value against present harm? Can you quantify that trade-off?
5. Institutional vs. Individual: Should ethics be different for large institutions (Internet Archive) vs. individual archivists? Why or why not?
6. The Custodial Burden: Have you ever made a preservation decision? How did it feel? What did you learn?
Exercise: Ethical Triage Simulation
Scenario: You're part of an archival collective. A platform announces shutdown in 72 hours. Your group has capacity to preserve 20% of the platform's content. Here are six types of content—rank them 1-6 for preservation priority, then justify your ranking:
Content Types:
A. Celebrity Accounts (1 million posts) - High engagement, widely discussed - Already screenshotted/quoted in media - Creators are wealthy, can hire archivists if they want
B. LGBTQ+ Youth Support Forum (50,000 posts) - Private/semi-private discussions - Coming out stories, mental health support - Many posters were minors at time of posting - No other known archive
C. Political Misinformation Archive (200,000 posts) - Conspiracy theories, false health info - Harmful but historically significant - Researchers studying radicalization want access
D. Fan Fiction Community (500,000 stories) - Transformative works, LGBTQ+ representation - Some authors deleted stories (wanted them gone) - Copyright gray area (derivative of copyrighted works)
E. Indie Artist Portfolios (100,000 works) - Original art, music, poetry - Many artists no longer active online (can't contact) - Some nsfw content (but artistic, not pornographic)
F. Corporate Brand Accounts (500,000 posts) - Marketing, customer service interactions - Low cultural value but documents commercial strategies - Easy to scrape (public, well-structured)
Part 1: Ranking (300 words) - Rank 1-6 (1 = highest priority) - Justify each ranking using the five Custodial Filter questions
Part 2: Ethical Dilemmas (500 words)
For your top 2 choices, identify: - What ethical dilemmas arise? - How would you handle consent? - What access restrictions (if any)? - How would you handle takedown requests?
Part 3: Reflection (300 words) - What was hardest about ranking? - Did you prioritize harm reduction, cultural significance, or feasibility? - How did your personal values shape your choices? - Would you make different choices if you had more time/resources?
Further Reading
On Archival Ethics
- Caswell, Michelle. Urgent Archives: Enacting Liberatory Memory Work. Routledge, 2021. - Jimerson, Randall. Archives Power: Memory, Accountability, and Social Justice. Society of American Archivists, 2009. - Flinn, Andrew. "Community Histories, Community Archives: Some Opportunities and Challenges." Journal of the Society of Archivists 28, no. 2 (2007): 151-176.
On Consent and Privacy
- Nissenbaum, Helen. Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford University Press, 2009. - Boyd, Danah. "Privacy and Publicity in the Context of Big Data." WWW '14 Keynote, 2014. - Marwick, Alice, and danah boyd. "Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media." New Media & Society 16, no. 7 (2014): 1051-1067.
On Harm and Trauma-Informed Practice
- Caswell, Michelle, et al. "'To Be Able to Imagine Otherwise': Community Archives and the Importance of Representation." Archives and Records 38, no. 1 (2017): 5-26. - Herman, Judith. Trauma and Recovery. Basic Books, 1992. - Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. SAMHSA's Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach. 2014.
On Digital Ethics
- Markham, Annette, and Elizabeth Buchanan. Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research. Association of Internet Researchers, 2012. - Zimmer, Michael. "But the data is already public: on the ethics of research in Facebook." Ethics and Information Technology 12, no. 4 (2010): 313-325.
End of Chapter 9
Next: Chapter 10 — Triage Workflow: From Discovery to Preservation
er 9 — The Custodial Filter: Ethics of Preservation