4 ms·

https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000/twitter.com/TaylorLorenz https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000/twitter.com/Tayl... https://web.archive.org/we

https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/twitter.com/TaylorLorenz https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/twitter.com/Tayl... https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/amren.com https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/amren.com Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. No reason or explanation given, or hint at who excluded it.

RajT88 4y ago
To be clear: I'm not suggesting he archive a youtube video using the Wayback machine. (Does this even work?) I am suggesting he upload the files directly.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  https://github.com/bibanon/tubeup https://github.com/bibanon/tubeup https://github.com/etnguyen03/docker-tubeup https://github.com/etnguyen03/docker-tubeup
no-dr-onboard 4y ago
For those of us at home, Taylor Lorenz is the niece of Roger Macdonald, creator of The Internet Archive's "Television Archive".
boomboomsubban 4y ago
Is there any reason to suspect it's something besides the person behind the content requested their domain be excluded? Or IA behaving as they legally should and always have?
- pannSun 4y ago
  Yes - the Archive's refusal to provide a reason. They don't get to have both the privilege of opaquely excluding content, and the assumption that all exclusions are for the most faultless reasons.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    Why would they provide a reason for a standard procedure? I'm fairly certain their exclusion guidelines are documented on their site. Are the content owners complaining about a desire to be archived but IA is blocking them? As if not, I don't see the issue.
    - pannSun 4y ago
      This forum thread documents that websites can be excluded for various reasons, including complaints by people other than the website/domain owner: https://archive.org/post/778/exclusions-from-the-wayback-machine https://archive.org/post/778/exclusions-from-the-wayback-mac... I'm sure there's some guideline somewhere giving themselves blanket excuse to do anything they want, then hide behind secrecy and hope people will assume the best. What I'm not sure is why such duplicity being "standard" makes it any better.
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
        >including complaints by people other than the website/domain owner: Yes, they are legally required to listen to the copyright owner's request. In your linked example, that was the church of scientology. In your earlier post, that would be whoever was writing the tweets. Twitter could also choose to block their requests as the wayback machine would also grab their copyrighted code, but choose not to. You're making a documented legal requirement sound like a shady partisanship. Unless there are examples of these people wanting their content archived and the IA refusing, I don't see your point. Anybody is free to tell the IA not to archive their copyright material.
        pannSun 4y ago
        > You're making a documented legal requirement sound like a shady partisanship Unless keeping the cause of removal secret is also a legal requirement, then this is by definition shady. And you assume that because some removals are results of legal complaints, then all are. It is Archive's choice to keep us in the dark regarding removals, and it is our choice not to trust them for it.
Thorrez 4y ago
For the second example it's pretty clear why it's excluded: https://www.amren.com/robots.txt https://www.amren.com/robots.txt User-agent: ia_archiver Disallow: / For the first example, it sounds like[1] she requested that her page be excluded. It sounds like[2] the Internet Archive allows you to request that. [1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/taylor-lorenz-twitter-page-excluded-internet-archive https://www.foxnews.com/media/taylor-lorenz-twitter-page-exc... [2] https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-something-from-archive-org/ https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-som...

https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/twitter.com/TaylorLorenz https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/twitter.com/Tayl... https://web.archive.org/we

RajT88 4y ago

To be clear: I'm not suggesting he archive a youtube video using the Wayback machine. (Does this even work?) I am suggesting he upload the files directly.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
https://github.com/bibanon/tubeup https://github.com/bibanon/tubeup https://github.com/etnguyen03/docker-tubeup https://github.com/etnguyen03/docker-tubeup

no-dr-onboard 4y ago

For those of us at home, Taylor Lorenz is the niece of Roger Macdonald, creator of The Internet Archive's "Television Archive".

boomboomsubban 4y ago

Is there any reason to suspect it's something besides the person behind the content requested their domain be excluded? Or IA behaving as they legally should and always have?

pannSun 4y ago
Yes - the Archive's refusal to provide a reason. They don't get to have both the privilege of opaquely excluding content, and the assumption that all exclusions are for the most faultless reasons.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  Why would they provide a reason for a standard procedure? I'm fairly certain their exclusion guidelines are documented on their site. Are the content owners complaining about a desire to be archived but IA is blocking them? As if not, I don't see the issue.
  - pannSun 4y ago
    This forum thread documents that websites can be excluded for various reasons, including complaints by people other than the website/domain owner: https://archive.org/post/778/exclusions-from-the-wayback-machine https://archive.org/post/778/exclusions-from-the-wayback-mac... I'm sure there's some guideline somewhere giving themselves blanket excuse to do anything they want, then hide behind secrecy and hope people will assume the best. What I'm not sure is why such duplicity being "standard" makes it any better.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      >including complaints by people other than the website/domain owner: Yes, they are legally required to listen to the copyright owner's request. In your linked example, that was the church of scientology. In your earlier post, that would be whoever was writing the tweets. Twitter could also choose to block their requests as the wayback machine would also grab their copyrighted code, but choose not to. You're making a documented legal requirement sound like a shady partisanship. Unless there are examples of these people wanting their content archived and the IA refusing, I don't see your point. Anybody is free to tell the IA not to archive their copyright material.
      - pannSun 4y ago
        > You're making a documented legal requirement sound like a shady partisanship Unless keeping the cause of removal secret is also a legal requirement, then this is by definition shady. And you assume that because some removals are results of legal complaints, then all are. It is Archive's choice to keep us in the dark regarding removals, and it is our choice not to trust them for it.

Thorrez 4y ago

For the second example it's pretty clear why it's excluded: https://www.amren.com/robots.txt https://www.amren.com/robots.txt User-agent: ia_archiver Disallow: / For the first example, it sounds like[1] she requested that her page be excluded. It sounds like[2] the Internet Archive allows you to request that. [1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/taylor-lorenz-twitter-page-excluded-internet-archive https://www.foxnews.com/media/taylor-lorenz-twitter-page-exc... [2] https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-something-from-archive-org/ https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-som...