but then they blame it all on scaaary right-wingers as if it isn't leftists pushing to remove and censor any information that goes against their own narrative
Yeah, that's the problem with it. Who has been demanding stuff gets removed from the internet? Primarily the left. Who has been demanding people lose a voice? Primarily the left. Who decided that they should stick "fact checks" on anything and everything online? Primarily the left. Oh, and Internet Archive.
But using a service that defers to the enemy is helping them.
It really doesn't help them when I use them, as they don't earn any money when I ask them to store this or that URL. That is why they have to fundraise.
Why discourage the preservation of information? Local backups may seem foolish now but we'll be happy for all the people who did it later on when these archive organizations get infiltrated and start editing history.
For that purpose, it's good. But for the purpose of being able to prove something, it's less so, as it's worth as much as a screenshot which can be edited.
That isn't my take on this. It sounds like the Archive is wary of the direction the Internet censorship is heading. It seems to me they are warning against this political censorship, not encouraging it.
I can agree with someone, in this case Archive.org, on principal that censorship is bad.
I don't have to have exactly the same imagined set of fears and concerns they have outlined to find some common ground with them.
I don't like the big tech leftist censorship we see today. I don't expect it playing out the way they have imagined. But maybe they don't need to give someone with my principles the hard sell. Maybe there are a lot more lefties that need to see how authoritarian censorship looks from another angle. So I kind of see this mockup as persuasive marketing, but you and I aren't the demographic they are trying to convince.
I can't agree with the reasoning because it's a very superficial agreement and there is no common ground beyond the statement of "obvious bad thing is bad".
Agreeing with them just emboldens them, and emboldening them leads to their terrible solutions that just lead to more of the bad thing. Doesn't matter if it's censorship, the environment, or kung flu. It's never good.
If the left worries about anything and it's actually legitimate, it's only because the wheel they've been slowly crushing people with is now next to crush them. I have no sympathy.
So, which is it? Am I supposed to superficially agree with them so the sheep can be convinced to go along with something that'll just lead to more censorship, or am I supposed to shed a tear when the woke go broke?
remember leftists will always larp is the resistance underdog from their favorite capeshit, even when their ideology creates a new soviet union they are in charge of.
also stop calling them with useless euphemisms like "regressive". This implies that they should be progressive or that they are doing progress wrong
If you repeal S230 outright, that would destroy Archive.org - because then it would be liable for everything that users archive. It should not be repealed outright, but made conditional.
Yeah, that's the problem with it. Who has been demanding stuff gets removed from the internet? Primarily the left. Who has been demanding people lose a voice? Primarily the left. Who decided that they should stick "fact checks" on anything and everything online? Primarily the left. Oh, and Internet Archive.
It's funny how the Internet Archive is being sued as we speak by the Soy Mafia led by Chuck Wendigo.
Holy fuck rofl
Cringe, I use archive.is anyway.
That's not a good idea, because you need redundancy. I make sure to archive everything on both, in case one disappears.
I'm getting an SSD to make local copies, so that will be my redundancy.
Something on your local hard drive is not proof nor redundancy, unless you want to work for UN Women and cite your C-drive in references.
But using a service that defers to the enemy is helping them.
It's the same reason I don't use Signal.
It really doesn't help them when I use them, as they don't earn any money when I ask them to store this or that URL. That is why they have to fundraise.
But they're gaining power through a larger userbase. It makes their inevitable attack against us more powerful.
How? Best they can do is remove the stuff that we put there, but that just puts you in the position as when you only used archive.is
Why discourage the preservation of information? Local backups may seem foolish now but we'll be happy for all the people who did it later on when these archive organizations get infiltrated and start editing history.
For that purpose, it's good. But for the purpose of being able to prove something, it's less so, as it's worth as much as a screenshot which can be edited.
so...their timeline relies on on fiction piece: section 230 of US law is fully repealed
Bill C10 & Bill C36 and a communist ideation government will definitely make that true. Definitely.
"Net neutrality will kill the internet!" -- these same people 7 years ago
That isn't my take on this. It sounds like the Archive is wary of the direction the Internet censorship is heading. It seems to me they are warning against this political censorship, not encouraging it.
Political censorship from the right (somehow), yeah. I mean just look at their "Interactive Timeline" of doom and gloom.
That's lefty fearmongering if I've ever seen it.
I can agree with someone, in this case Archive.org, on principal that censorship is bad.
I don't have to have exactly the same imagined set of fears and concerns they have outlined to find some common ground with them.
I don't like the big tech leftist censorship we see today. I don't expect it playing out the way they have imagined. But maybe they don't need to give someone with my principles the hard sell. Maybe there are a lot more lefties that need to see how authoritarian censorship looks from another angle. So I kind of see this mockup as persuasive marketing, but you and I aren't the demographic they are trying to convince.
I can't agree with the reasoning because it's a very superficial agreement and there is no common ground beyond the statement of "obvious bad thing is bad".
Agreeing with them just emboldens them, and emboldening them leads to their terrible solutions that just lead to more of the bad thing. Doesn't matter if it's censorship, the environment, or kung flu. It's never good.
If the left worries about anything and it's actually legitimate, it's only because the wheel they've been slowly crushing people with is now next to crush them. I have no sympathy.
So, which is it? Am I supposed to superficially agree with them so the sheep can be convinced to go along with something that'll just lead to more censorship, or am I supposed to shed a tear when the woke go broke?
remember leftists will always larp is the resistance underdog from their favorite capeshit, even when their ideology creates a new soviet union they are in charge of.
also stop calling them with useless euphemisms like "regressive". This implies that they should be progressive or that they are doing progress wrong
What part is exactly regressive leftist propaganda? Didn't really notice anything while skimming, except that weirdo with black lipstick.
It's the idea that conservatives repealing 230 would destroy the internet.
And that the news would merge into one big conservative minded entity 😂
Maybe neocon Bush conservatism.
If you repeal S230 outright, that would destroy Archive.org - because then it would be liable for everything that users archive. It should not be repealed outright, but made conditional.