3 ms·

You absolutely can read news from 10 even 20 even 100 years ago. One example: https://news.google.com/newspapers https://news.google.com/newspapers I think yo

by fny 4y ago

You absolutely can read news from 10 even 20 even 100 years ago. One example: https://news.google.com/newspapers https://news.google.com/newspapers I think you forget or may not have grown up with the microfiche. The reality of the internet is that everyone has a voice and things will only be archived if someone gives a damn to archive them. And that's fine. Some information deserves to be transient. Hell, we've survived millennia without this level of information storage. Does every single YouTube video, Reddit post, and Flickr photo really need to live forever? No. Would it be nice? Sure.

freediver 4y ago
This is very interesting. Do you know how are these licensed?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cxr 4y ago
That's fine for stuff that was printed in newspapers, but you (like the topmost commenter) seem to be replying to something different from what the article is talking about. Paper is great, because it doesn't just evaporate when you look away. Although it does degrade, it's a slow process—slow enough that you can notice that it's happening and think to yourself, "Gee, I maybe ought to do something about this." It's not the same for transient digital media. There are bonafide news items and other digital content that are now no longer accessible because they were digital-first but the business incentives were so misaligned and/or their legacy has been so mismanaged that, perversely, it's easier to access to the content of a 50-year old news article than it is for others that are 5–15 years old. People can always trawl through their parents' and grandparents' belongings and come across the only known surviving copy of something and donate it to a library or sell the collection in a yard sale or eBay. (Whether they know it's the only one known to exist or not isn't a precondition.) That's not just less likely with the Web, but it's drastically less likely. No one's gleaning much from the unevicted entries in someone's browser cache.

by fny 4y ago

freediver 4y ago

This is very interesting. Do you know how are these licensed?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

cxr 4y ago

That's fine for stuff that was printed in newspapers, but you (like the topmost commenter) seem to be replying to something different from what the article is talking about. Paper is great, because it doesn't just evaporate when you look away. Although it does degrade, it's a slow process—slow enough that you can notice that it's happening and think to yourself, "Gee, I maybe ought to do something about this." It's not the same for transient digital media. There are bonafide news items and other digital content that are now no longer accessible because they were digital-first but the business incentives were so misaligned and/or their legacy has been so mismanaged that, perversely, it's easier to access to the content of a 50-year old news article than it is for others that are 5–15 years old. People can always trawl through their parents' and grandparents' belongings and come across the only known surviving copy of something and donate it to a library or sell the collection in a yard sale or eBay. (Whether they know it's the only one known to exist or not isn't a precondition.) That's not just less likely with the Web, but it's drastically less likely. No one's gleaning much from the unevicted entries in someone's browser cache.