as many of you know from the Sarah Butts fiasco and the recent arbitrary account requirements to view content that goes against the corrupt WHO, archive.org is highly unreliable, however archive.org has blocked all images under media.8ch.net from appearing in their archives.
I have emailed them and they refuse to remove the block and restore everything it despite the obvious overreaching being pointed out, demanding irrelevant evidence on how the block is questionable.
Due to the apparent corruption at archive.org in the wake of the Wuhan virus bullshit, the only thing that may make a difference would be a change in management.
I hope to fucking god that with the exception being CP discovered on their servers and subsequently reported to the cops, that they don't delete excluded content in case it contains evidence of something illegal
All of those archive sites are unreliable ticking timebombs.
Yep, somebody should develop an offline archive program. At the very least you can take screenshots, even if those aren't fully reliable.
There is a lot of software that can do that, including an own file format for saving websites called WARC: https://github.com/iipc/awesome-web-archiving
Maybe there is even a possibility to host an own archive website. The folks over at TD could be interested in it as well (archive.win?) https://github.com/rhizome-conifer/conifer https://github.com/harvard-lil/perma
Part of the point of using online archives is that they can be reasonably trusted to not have been tampered with.
I can run a wget mirror and edit the fuck out of everything. If everyone else's archive is missing, my doctored archive becomes the only source of truth.
Good point. If anything, this is an argument for making multiple archives with multiple methods. Why only archive.is/today? When archive.org is censoring and archive.is/today shuts down one day (just 50 bucks a week over liberapay?), a third or forth reasonably trusted service for simultaneous use would help. If needed, one of them could be from communities.win or something.
That's a clearly superior solution when it comes to preserving information for personal use, but I don't think it would hold up as proof of history or evidence of lies. I'm not great at computers, but I don't see how it'd be possible to locally store data in a format that cannot be altered by the user - and if it were possible, would it be in a form that provides a desirable user experience?
Archives are only good if they can continue to host content. There are too many problems with them and we may lose them. We need to take more user-based content sites with users we can trust.
If anyone remembers what happened with the "austere religious scholar" that morning, the rabid left claimed it was false because they looked at the updated version and nothing else. If we had a neutral MSM, this wouldn't be an issue. We're pretty much screwed unless we have multiple trusted media sources.
Unfortunately they've really always been this way as far as erring on the side of deletion rather than keeping. I've said it before on this sub, but all a site owner has to do to eliminate every archive of their site on .org is change their robots.txt.
The site should be treated as a way to look up old information, not to store information.
How would you look up old information on the site if it wasn't for storing old information?
I didn’t say the site isn’t for storing old information, I said it shouldn’t be treated as such.
That is to say, the site is an incredibly useful resource for finding old pages that aren’t archived anywhere else. But anything you find that you want stored long term should be archived elsewhere or, if public record isn’t important, a local copy could be kept.
Isn't this kind of thing why everyone switched to other archive sites? We should have a guide for which ones hold up a degree of integrity. One may already exist that I'm unaware of.
A quick look shows me that both kia2 (reddit version) and voat feature links from archive.is. That implies that it's the most reliable one at this moment (and makes it a desirable target for blackmail).
So Internet Archive has revealed that they're not really interested in preservation. Just interested in piracy all along.