3 ms·
That's a bad thing. At least when you are reading Washington Posts online article about the russian hack of the US power grid it says: "Editor’s Note: An earlie
by einr 9y ago
That's a bad thing. At least when you are reading Washington Posts online article about the russian hack of the US power grid it says: "Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid."
The record that a correction was made only exists if all involved parties wants it to. If the publisher/government/Google/ISP etc. has malicious intent, they could make changes silently and pretend as if nothing happened.
At least with newspapers, the physical copy of the previous version will always exist (barring the implementation of totalitarian government and 1984-style memory holes, of course).
- gt_ 9y agoThis is a actual use for blockchain that we could put into action pretty much whenever we can decide to.
- mikepurvis 9y agoOr just, you know, a cache.
- dorfsmay 9y agoThis, the ability for people controlling the media to change history, is why archive.org was created. Do think about them when you contribute to "charities", even a few dollars per year goes a long way.
- makomk 9y agoAssuming that sites don't block archiving (Vice and its sub-brands like Motherboard were doing this quite aggressively for a while, so there's basically no public record of what their articles used to say), and assuming the Internet Archive themselves can't be convinced to remove the archived copies.