4 ms·

Teen Vogue’s Yanked Facebook Sponsored Content on Election Integrity

21 points by jashkenas 7y ago

wutbrodo 7y ago
The OP archive link is broken for me "Page doesn't exist"
- mirimir 7y ago
  I'm sure that this is just archive.org playing nice. Edit: I'm assuming that there was actually content at that URL when it was submitted. But maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps jashkenas could clarify that.
  - jashkenas 7y ago
    It was cached correctly when I posted it, but it’s certainly gone now. Sorry that I can't update the URL...
    - mirimir 7y ago
      Thanks. That's what I meant about archive.org playing nice. If sites ask them to update captures, they do. I'm not criticizing them for that. It's sort of a "right to be forgotten" thing. But it means that they're not a reliable source for anything too controversial.
      - textfiles 7y ago
        That's not what happened here. You're making huge leaps of logic, and while we might do a takedown, we will not "modify" a capture to satisfy a third party.
        hcs 7y ago
        Seems to be working now, can you provide any insight into what folks were seeing earlier?
        mirimir 7y ago
        Please see my reply to textfiles.
        mirimir 7y ago
        OK, fair enough. I saw three captures: 18:02:12 18:10:22 18:11:28 And all three showed: > Uh-Oh > Unfortunately this page does not exist. Please check your URL or return to the Homepage. So when jashkenas said that there was content when they posted, I wrongly assumed that the first capture had been altered. But now I can see that the first capture (17:03:04) was missing when I wrote my comment. And so it's fair to conclude that the others were never altered. Mea culpa. We do know that the 17:03:04 capture was there when jashkenas submitted "5 hours ago", at about 2020-01-08 22:40 UTC. But it was missing when wutbrodo and I commented at about 2020-01-08 23:40 UTC. And back when hcs commented at about 2020-01-09 02:40 UTC. So yes, I was wrong about the mechanics. However, I have seen several takedowns, over the years. And I understand how archive.org must maintain working relationships. But the point remains that archive.org is not a reliable archive. And that's sad. The Internet needs a reliable archive. So we have a coherent history of what actually happened. This takdown has apparently been reversed, but several others never were. I must admit that I'm curious why the first capture was taken down, and then restored.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- sb057 7y ago
  https://archive.is/8J1qB https://archive.is/8J1qB
ProAm 7y ago
Original discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21994173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21994173
- dang 7y ago
  Ok, we'll move the comments thither. Thanks!

21 points by jashkenas 7y ago

wutbrodo 7y ago

The OP archive link is broken for me "Page doesn't exist"

mirimir 7y ago
I'm sure that this is just archive.org playing nice. Edit: I'm assuming that there was actually content at that URL when it was submitted. But maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps jashkenas could clarify that.
- jashkenas 7y ago
  It was cached correctly when I posted it, but it’s certainly gone now. Sorry that I can't update the URL...
  - mirimir 7y ago
    Thanks. That's what I meant about archive.org playing nice. If sites ask them to update captures, they do. I'm not criticizing them for that. It's sort of a "right to be forgotten" thing. But it means that they're not a reliable source for anything too controversial.
    - textfiles 7y ago
      That's not what happened here. You're making huge leaps of logic, and while we might do a takedown, we will not "modify" a capture to satisfy a third party.
      - hcs 7y ago
        Seems to be working now, can you provide any insight into what folks were seeing earlier?
        mirimir 7y ago
        Please see my reply to textfiles.
      - mirimir 7y ago
        OK, fair enough. I saw three captures: 18:02:12 18:10:22 18:11:28 And all three showed: > Uh-Oh > Unfortunately this page does not exist. Please check your URL or return to the Homepage. So when jashkenas said that there was content when they posted, I wrongly assumed that the first capture had been altered. But now I can see that the first capture (17:03:04) was missing when I wrote my comment. And so it's fair to conclude that the others were never altered. Mea culpa. We do know that the 17:03:04 capture was there when jashkenas submitted "5 hours ago", at about 2020-01-08 22:40 UTC. But it was missing when wutbrodo and I commented at about 2020-01-08 23:40 UTC. And back when hcs commented at about 2020-01-09 02:40 UTC. So yes, I was wrong about the mechanics. However, I have seen several takedowns, over the years. And I understand how archive.org must maintain working relationships. But the point remains that archive.org is not a reliable archive. And that's sad. The Internet needs a reliable archive. So we have a coherent history of what actually happened. This takdown has apparently been reversed, but several others never were. I must admit that I'm curious why the first capture was taken down, and then restored.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
sb057 7y ago
https://archive.is/8J1qB https://archive.is/8J1qB

ProAm 7y ago

Original discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21994173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21994173

dang 7y ago
Ok, we'll move the comments thither. Thanks!