Hm. I gave it the thoroughly uncreative title "untitled.bmp". Maybe if I had called it "facebook is evil and out to get you"? I tend to assume they're up to no good, when things go wonky on Facebook. This woman made the same assumption, and so did a couple of commentators on her post. There's something about Facebook that makes big-brother-style censorship the first thing you think of, even if there are other possible reasons for wonky. And even if you sound ever so slightly crazy voicing it. Maybe collective discomfort about the combo operant conditioning and market research of the "like" button? Or their habit of censoring progressive organizing, breastfeeding, birth, queer activism, queer bodies and outgoing messages, in addition to websites they don't like... they have very weird ideas about "obscene." So I couldn't replicate your results with my experiment, but you're probably still not as paranoid as you sound. Or at least not as paranoid as the parrot.

I did feel ever so slightly crazy for voicing it. ALthough all my friends on FB who'd had it removed did, like me, voice their own ever so slightly crazy concern too.

But now I feel less so, in light of FB's evident ease with censoring all types of legit organizing. I guess these are important reminders that Facebook isn't a forum for discourse, it's a vehicle for advertising. 

:) My current facebook hobby is making up stories to explain their "targeted" marketing. I guess I don't give them enough to go on ("About me: Don't tag me in photos!!!"). A few weeks ago they showed me ads for a gay men's dating site, a straight women's "find a man" advice magazine... and a psychologist-finding service. Kinda insulting, but I suppose I'd need it, if I couldn't figure out whether I was a gay man or a straight woman. (Today, it's 70% off linens: totally nailed my mad napping skillz).

It gets worse, since consumer digital recording devices commonly output to lossy formats (i.e., MP3, MP4, JPG).

Analog output such as an LP still has archival value if you have the storage facility.

Perhaps Superman crystals are an option?

( i.e., http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100622095050.htm ; http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2005/March/03-polarons.html )

Yeah, I never understood why the RIAA and CRIA got so enraged over MP3 sharing when the format quality is so audibly inferior to CD quality. (Appealing to consumers' taste for quality instead of suing inner-city children and single mothers would have been way better PR for that industry.)

The vinyl example is a good reminder that media formats don't succeed each other in anything like a linear way. Vinyl never went away, while cassette tapes came and went; in the digital domain, PDF, JPG, and MP3 have proven relatively robust -- so far -- in that they've both been around a venerable decade or so.

I agree that it is important to recognise the quality issue with PDF, and lossy formats.  A degraded output or a high resolution output? (assuming that only text has full resolution, whereas everything else is a distant second choice to analog audio/visual input). I would rather have the source file format than the exported PDF version.  However, I'm not sure there will always be a choice in the future as people find it inconvenient (and possibly confusing) to have multiple copies of files in different formats.

If open office files were rendered directly in a web browser with PDF like features (i.e., markup), perhaps there would be a chance for some data transparency.