3 ms·

I like what the internet archive is doing, but I'm saddened that many just use it as a hack to get around paywalls. I don't think that's in alignment with the i

I like what the internet archive is doing, but I'm saddened that many just use it as a hack to get around paywalls. I don't think that's in alignment with the internet archive's mission. I think it's important for society in the long-term to keep journalism a rewarding profession. Maybe as a compromise the internet archive could only allow access to archived journalism content after, say, a year's time. We'd be sure things got archived, and journalists would still get paid.

boomboomsubban 3y ago
archive.is has no connection to the Internet Archive, the IA I believe does not allow the easy bypass of things like the NYT paywall.
- usr1106 3y ago
  This drifting away for the original topic... or maybe it isn't that much if the pessimists are right in the end that IA will shut down after this lawsuit and we need other ressources when searching for something that has disappeared from the net. Is it publicly known who is behind archive.is? Last time I checked about a year ago I could not find a name. But between the lines I could read they are affected by sanctions against Russia. Not individually but by the lack of international banking. So I concluded they are operating from Russia in one way or another.
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    There was an article here about it a few days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37009598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37009598
jazzyjackson 3y ago
The archive's mission is "Universal Access to All Knowledge", how do you figure that keeping a copy of news articles is not in line with that mission? Do you know you can walk into any library and read the daily paper? If a news outfit doesn't like what the archive is doing they can issue takedown requests and the archive will comply. Could be that journalists appreciate having the archive available to them more than viewing it as a threat to their livelihood.
zer8k 3y ago
> but I'm saddened that many just use it as a hack to get around paywalls. I have yet to run into a single piece from any mainstream news outlet that deserves my money. I have happily paid for the Financial Times, for example, because they have significantly higher bars set for journalistic integrity. Reuters is another one. Pardon me if I don't cry that NYT, WaPo, Marketwatch, WSJ, Bloomberg, and all other OpEd-disguised-as-journalism vendors don't get my $0.001 worth of clicks.
wkat4242 3y ago
It's archive.is that's more used to bypass those. Not really archive.org as it's not as effective for that.

boomboomsubban 3y ago

archive.is has no connection to the Internet Archive, the IA I believe does not allow the easy bypass of things like the NYT paywall.

usr1106 3y ago
This drifting away for the original topic... or maybe it isn't that much if the pessimists are right in the end that IA will shut down after this lawsuit and we need other ressources when searching for something that has disappeared from the net. Is it publicly known who is behind archive.is? Last time I checked about a year ago I could not find a name. But between the lines I could read they are affected by sanctions against Russia. Not individually but by the lack of international banking. So I concluded they are operating from Russia in one way or another.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  There was an article here about it a few days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37009598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37009598

jazzyjackson 3y ago

The archive's mission is "Universal Access to All Knowledge", how do you figure that keeping a copy of news articles is not in line with that mission? Do you know you can walk into any library and read the daily paper? If a news outfit doesn't like what the archive is doing they can issue takedown requests and the archive will comply. Could be that journalists appreciate having the archive available to them more than viewing it as a threat to their livelihood.

zer8k 3y ago

> but I'm saddened that many just use it as a hack to get around paywalls. I have yet to run into a single piece from any mainstream news outlet that deserves my money. I have happily paid for the Financial Times, for example, because they have significantly higher bars set for journalistic integrity. Reuters is another one. Pardon me if I don't cry that NYT, WaPo, Marketwatch, WSJ, Bloomberg, and all other OpEd-disguised-as-journalism vendors don't get my $0.001 worth of clicks.

wkat4242 3y ago

It's archive.is that's more used to bypass those. Not really archive.org as it's not as effective for that.