>>67317
>It's for preserving our culture.
This is kind of a problem though.
I'd argue that in some ways, destroying data is good. When you have too much data to hand, you basically end history. You don't need to study the past and put together the misc. data you have (which is basically the job of the historian) - you have basically all of it already. In doing so, you also destroy our ability to move beyond the past because you can't really change interpretations of individuals and events over time. While the first thought is always "wouldn't it be great to know if Abraham Lincoln masturbated daily?", after a little while you surely realise the mystery - the possibility of discussing it and tying together really vague references - is more fun than actually just looking up the access times on his personal files.
By contrast, a few old hard drives would undoubtedly survive, so if we just left those then maybve there'd be something for Historians to piece together. Though given how well archived the internet is (and nowadays, how centralised it is, and how companies want to keep the data of the deceased because it still helps them target ads to the living.) we're probably closer to the permanent public archival model.