9 ms·

Exactly. You need something like Internet Archive or better that is archival quality, random internet vandalism-proof and FBI raid-proof.

reaperducer 7y ago
Or even something more distributed. Like each public library has a storage cube and each cube has an overlapping portion of history. They checksum each other peer-to-peer to detect anyone trying to change history. There are 110,000 public libraries in the United States. Plus thousands more private libraries. Seems like enough for U.S. history, at least.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Shouldn't be the public libraries though. Public libraries will not save certain videos. Especially if the local police or the guys in the blue windbreakers with three yellow letters on them show up. Maybe that's a problem that everyone has? But it would be best if there was some offshore, FBI proof, kind of way to do this archiving.
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    Especially if the local police or the guys in the blue windbreakers with three yellow letters on them show up. I wouldn't be so sure about that. After 9/11, the libraries were the first to stand up to the government's desperate search for information. The feds wanted everyone's lending history, and ended up backing off when the libraries put up a fight.
- gowld 7y ago
  This is what BitTorrent and IPFS is for.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Those are ultimately transport and distribution systems. At some point, you need curators and archivists.
nilkn 7y ago
I noticed a month or two ago that certain sites seem to be excluded even from internet archives like the Wayback Machine. The first example I stumbled on was Snopes. I only noticed because I saw a Snopes link on Reddit where the thumbnail was clearly different from the live version; the thumbnail appeared to show a human-like baby in the womb, whereas the live version had that edited out. Example: https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fetus-can-send-stem-cells-repair-mothers-damaged-organs/ https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
- lucasmullens 7y ago
  I get "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine." To my understanding websites can chose to not be included in the Wayback Machine.
  - chongli 7y ago
    Not only that, if they are archived at one point and later decide to be excluded then all of the archives for that domain are deleted retroactively. This means that a valuable site can be archived for years but if the domain lapses and gets bought up by somebody who decides to exclude the Wayback Machine then all of that precious content is destroyed even though the destroyer never owned it! I feel like we’re in the Internet equivalent of the early years of Hollywood. We’ve lost so many precious early movies because there were no backups of the film.
    - schoen 7y ago
      I don't think your interpretation of the latter case is quite right. In my understanding, the Archive is willing to disable display of the site content retroactively due to a new robots.txt, but they won't delete that content. It will still be present in their files.
      - chongli 7y ago
        What you’re describing may have been a recent change that I wasn’t aware of. If so, it’s at least some consolation. We could still do better.
waffle_ss 7y ago
The Islamic State posted their content for many years on the Internet Archive. I believe IA did take down content in some cases.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Here's the thing, we're never likely to find a place that allows everything. I think most people understand that. But to find a provider of public access to archives more expansive than YouTube's, well, that's improvement.
- washadjeffmad 7y ago
  With IA, I feel that they probably de-listed the content but are hosting it for a time when it may be safer to reveal it as part of a greater historical record. I somehow don't get the same impression from same impression from YouTube
- docbrown 7y ago
  Modern day jihadist groups are now utilizing Telegram, Whatsapp, and TikTok to preserve and spread material. It’s quite easy to gain access to them — i’ve heard — as many researchers are gaining access to these messages to preserve said materials. Plus these apps give them an ability to easily communicate transcontinentally.
dmix 7y ago
Archive.is has constantly faced harassment from people filing DMCA claims and having domain names taken away for bullshit copyright claims. I'm sure if they started doing this the Twitter outrage warriors wouldn't be happy about it and add to the difficulty of their job.
- 1337biz 7y ago
  >the Twitter outrage warriors Somebody should classify this as an addictive behavior. 'The immanent urge to get emotionally excited by interacting with an equally excitable peer group on issues only remotely related to one's personal life'.
- dwild 7y ago
  Just in case there's confusion, the Internet Archive isn't Archive.is but Archive.org. They are 2 differents organizations. Internet Archive seems to be handling this kind of trouble quite well.

reaperducer 7y ago

Or even something more distributed. Like each public library has a storage cube and each cube has an overlapping portion of history. They checksum each other peer-to-peer to detect anyone trying to change history. There are 110,000 public libraries in the United States. Plus thousands more private libraries. Seems like enough for U.S. history, at least.

bilbo0s 7y ago
Shouldn't be the public libraries though. Public libraries will not save certain videos. Especially if the local police or the guys in the blue windbreakers with three yellow letters on them show up. Maybe that's a problem that everyone has? But it would be best if there was some offshore, FBI proof, kind of way to do this archiving.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  Especially if the local police or the guys in the blue windbreakers with three yellow letters on them show up. I wouldn't be so sure about that. After 9/11, the libraries were the first to stand up to the government's desperate search for information. The feds wanted everyone's lending history, and ended up backing off when the libraries put up a fight.
gowld 7y ago
This is what BitTorrent and IPFS is for.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Those are ultimately transport and distribution systems. At some point, you need curators and archivists.

nilkn 7y ago

I noticed a month or two ago that certain sites seem to be excluded even from internet archives like the Wayback Machine. The first example I stumbled on was Snopes. I only noticed because I saw a Snopes link on Reddit where the thumbnail was clearly different from the live version; the thumbnail appeared to show a human-like baby in the womb, whereas the live version had that edited out. Example: https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fetus-can-send-stem-cells-repair-mothers-damaged-organs/ https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

lucasmullens 7y ago
I get "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine." To my understanding websites can chose to not be included in the Wayback Machine.
- chongli 7y ago
  Not only that, if they are archived at one point and later decide to be excluded then all of the archives for that domain are deleted retroactively. This means that a valuable site can be archived for years but if the domain lapses and gets bought up by somebody who decides to exclude the Wayback Machine then all of that precious content is destroyed even though the destroyer never owned it! I feel like we’re in the Internet equivalent of the early years of Hollywood. We’ve lost so many precious early movies because there were no backups of the film.
  - schoen 7y ago
    I don't think your interpretation of the latter case is quite right. In my understanding, the Archive is willing to disable display of the site content retroactively due to a new robots.txt, but they won't delete that content. It will still be present in their files.
    - chongli 7y ago
      What you’re describing may have been a recent change that I wasn’t aware of. If so, it’s at least some consolation. We could still do better.

waffle_ss 7y ago

The Islamic State posted their content for many years on the Internet Archive. I believe IA did take down content in some cases.

bilbo0s 7y ago
Here's the thing, we're never likely to find a place that allows everything. I think most people understand that. But to find a provider of public access to archives more expansive than YouTube's, well, that's improvement.
washadjeffmad 7y ago
With IA, I feel that they probably de-listed the content but are hosting it for a time when it may be safer to reveal it as part of a greater historical record. I somehow don't get the same impression from same impression from YouTube
docbrown 7y ago
Modern day jihadist groups are now utilizing Telegram, Whatsapp, and TikTok to preserve and spread material. It’s quite easy to gain access to them — i’ve heard — as many researchers are gaining access to these messages to preserve said materials. Plus these apps give them an ability to easily communicate transcontinentally.

dmix 7y ago

Archive.is has constantly faced harassment from people filing DMCA claims and having domain names taken away for bullshit copyright claims. I'm sure if they started doing this the Twitter outrage warriors wouldn't be happy about it and add to the difficulty of their job.

1337biz 7y ago
>the Twitter outrage warriors Somebody should classify this as an addictive behavior. 'The immanent urge to get emotionally excited by interacting with an equally excitable peer group on issues only remotely related to one's personal life'.
dwild 7y ago
Just in case there's confusion, the Internet Archive isn't Archive.is but Archive.org. They are 2 differents organizations. Internet Archive seems to be handling this kind of trouble quite well.