4 ms·
You're consenting by posting it on public internet in the first place.
by garaetjjte 5y ago
You're consenting by posting it on public internet in the first place.
- ghaff 5y agoPosting something on the public internet is not consent for you to scrape it and post it on your own site forever. And requiring an explicit opt-in would basically mean no IA. To be clear, the IA is a positive, maybe even a great one. But it skirts by because most people don't care. (They did as you say post whatever on the public internet.) Add the facts that they're a non-profit, aren't trying to monetize their hosting, and will generally take things if the owner asks. Libraries and other archives have some very limited special rights (which mostly relate to making physical backups of physical books). But invoking "library" isn't some general get out of jail free card with respect to copyright.
- blackearl 5y agoPeople have recorded others without their consent for millennia. Whether it's telling a story about what someone said, a photo, or now a screenshot of a twitter post, that is reality. You'll never be able to stop someone from telling another that you said X.
- pessimizer 5y agoIt can be. The reason libraries and other archives have special rights is because they fought for them against the express wishes of people who sold paper. There are no arguments made against archive.org that weren't also made against libraries.
- Mezzie 5y agoThank you. These rights are also under constant attack: It's normal to charge libraries exorbitant prices for digital materials compared to their analogue counterparts, for example.
- _jal 5y ago> Posting something on the public internet is not consent for you to scrape it and post it on your own site forever. It effectively is. Your consent is not required, and people are doing far worse than just keeping it available (Clearview; there are also reports of people hoovering up encrypted data to crack in the coming decades when we're post-quantum). This is no different than demanding people not keep track of anything else, and attacking archive.org might make you feel better, but that won't make anyone else stop.
- f3rnando 5y agoI strongly believe that theres no freedom of speech without the freedom to replicate that speech.
- netrus 5y agoDo you think most people who post publicly on the internet would agree if asked? I think most people would like to have a choice to make old stuff disappear. If most people think so, THAT should be the rule. You might not like that and argue that there is no way to enforce it, but that does not mean it is a good rule to assume consent.
- ghaff 5y agoThere are two things: 1.) Most people won't opt-in because a significant majority accept defaults and don't opt into most things. 2.) For people like yourself probing a bit deeper, you might well ask whether you really want to give up your ability to decide you don't want something you thought was so funny when you wrote it at 20 now that you're a politician running for office or up for a political appointment.
- kodah 5y agoI mean even honoring the opt-out of robots.txt would be fantastic. As another commenter pointed out they willfully ignore it: https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-search-engines-dont-work-well-for-web-archives/ https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-sea... It's fairly unethical.
- BeFlatXIII 5y agoHow about this? Archives will still exist regardless of consent. Does that makes them digital rapists?
- anaganisk 5y agoLets say someone posted a private video and some zero day made it public, what’s the take on this scenario. Somehow robots crawled it.