Look, I don't really want to much further with this as this is getting to be too much of digital vs. film. All I wanted to say was that the world is different now, and 90% of people (in developed nations, anyways) seem to be rather content with digital file sharing and archiving, with little being printed.
Originally Posted by MDR
I agree that film is a great archival format that has been proven to last over a century if properly maintained. Not to mention, in 100 years, a film negative can be copied again so that worries of the negative fading are rendered moot.
But what I am saying is most people have moved on from that. Digital archiving is not to the level of film archiving, but it isn't half bad if you remove your hard film bias and it's clearly working for most people. How is a hard drive that is powerful enough to withstand time and some environmental conditions more likely to fail with time and environmental conditions? That doesn't make sense.
You are right, Facebook isn't very old. But neither was film in the 19th century, and look how far it's gotten! Facebook may bite the dust, but there will always be another company to take its place (like how Facebook was there when Myspace tanked in popularity). People's treasured memories don't just disappear from Facebook due to a hard drive at Facebook failing (and like I said, with cloud and solid state HD, this is less of a worry). The only way they would disappear is if Facebook ceased to exist, but there would likely be sufficient notice and an alternative website.
Anyways, I'm done with this conversation. I've made my point, and if you disagree, that's fine, no point clogging a Kodak thread with any digital vs. film.