8 ms·
> 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 thi
by 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.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoI assume all unarchived content is unarchived because of their established policy for not archiving things, which is the copyright holder refusing archiving. Why would I assume otherwise? We aren't being kept in the dark, we know the reason some content is unarchived and they say which content is unarchived. Your complaint is like going to a store with posted hours after closing and demanding an explanation for why they aren't letting you in. It's possible there's some vast conspiracy to block you from shopping, bit it's more likely they're following the posted rules.
- pannSun 4y ago> I assume all unarchived content is unarchived because of their established policy for not archiving things, which is the copyright holder refusing archiving. Why would I assume otherwise? Because of their deliberate policy of secrecy that forces you to assume, instead of know. As this is the 3rd time I repeat this same point, it will also be the last.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoI directly addressed this with my following two paragraphs. It's not secrecy, we're fully aware of why they were unarchived and have no reason to think there's any other reason.