> We can't just keep saving shit forever, though the progression of technology I guess makes it easier and easier, but eventually we're going to hit a limit.

Yes we can. Through the 'progression of technology' as you put it, I believe we will never come close to any limit. Just look at how much data is stored in DNA, and you'll see that our current data storage technologies are relatively primitive.

How are we to know what's important and not? Surely, there's interesting content available at Posterous. Just to mention an example, CloudFlare's blog is hosted there.

Sure, there's plenty of spam accounts and crappy content - but that might prove worthful in the future. Maybe someone would study what kind of content we as a race were contributing to that kind of platform, in this day and age - maybe someone is researching the automated spam.

This is not really taking up all that much space, in this day and age. There's around 2.2 TB downloaded - it's mostly text and images. That's half a single 4TB drive. Not really storage capacity to fight about in my opinion.

Yeah I guess you're right about the storage piece, however, I don't think it's useful at all. We always live in the moment of "right now is the most important moment in history", when really most of the content we're saving is junk, and, as more and more of it compounds, more and more junk will just accumulate on the pile. I'd assume that 90% of what's in posterous is worthless, the other 10% is just people reiterating good points, but the key word is _re_iterating. Do we really need tens, then hundreds, then thousands of years of files of things people said on personal blogs in the past? Absolutely not.