That's it? Honestly I expected a bit more than just that universal truth. That has exceptions as you should know. There are more than enough open source projects that nobody gets rich off and are primarily funded by donations.
Never ask why the old guard kept pushing archive sites with unlimited funding that could only ever come from one place, when screenshots are simple and secure...
Blindly trusting them... what the fuck are you even talking about? They can only collect data that literally EVERY SINGLE webpage in existence can collect. You're just now using a website that can collect significantly more data about you than archive.today can.
And have fun circumventing paywall locked articles with a screenshot. Also screenshots can be easily manipulated which is why archives are generally seen as more trustworthy. Besides that archive.today does little more than take a screenshot of a webpage anyway.
Can't prove it.
But why would "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product" NOT apply to archive sites?
That's it? Honestly I expected a bit more than just that universal truth. That has exceptions as you should know. There are more than enough open source projects that nobody gets rich off and are primarily funded by donations.
Keep blindly trusting them then.
Never ask why the old guard kept pushing archive sites with unlimited funding that could only ever come from one place, when screenshots are simple and secure...
Blindly trusting them... what the fuck are you even talking about? They can only collect data that literally EVERY SINGLE webpage in existence can collect. You're just now using a website that can collect significantly more data about you than archive.today can.
And have fun circumventing paywall locked articles with a screenshot. Also screenshots can be easily manipulated which is why archives are generally seen as more trustworthy. Besides that archive.today does little more than take a screenshot of a webpage anyway.
Taylor Lorenz.