8 ms·
The difference is that we know who's running archive.org. We don't know who's running archive.is. That's perfectly fine for private use but unacceptable for a s
by Yokolos 1y ago
The difference is that we know who's running archive.org. We don't know who's running archive.is. That's perfectly fine for private use but unacceptable for a site like Wikipedia.
It's not that difficult.
- hsuduebc2 1y agoI never concluded that but this actually allows someone, the anonymous here to change the history/info backwards if needed. For russians as an example this would be powerfull tool to manipulate narrative, which is cultural there at this point. Pretty smart and dangerous if it is really operated by them.
- monooso 1y agoSuch practices are by no means limited to Russia.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- hsuduebc2 1y agoAbsolutely. They we're just example which came to my mind first.
- mk17b 1y agoAlso happens to likely be where the site owner is based https://gyrovague.com/2023/08/05/archive-today-on-the-trail-of-the-mysterious-guerrilla-archivist-of-the-internet/ https://gyrovague.com/2023/08/05/archive-today-on-the-trail-...
- snickerbockers 1y agoIgnoring the fact that one of this service's primary reason for existing is that corporations and governments are already abusing their ability to retroactively change history. If this is truly a concern then the answer is to have more than one publicly-accessible independent archive service. Archivebro has never taken any steps towards securing a monopoly on archiving things. The FBI are the only ones doing that. Also not everybody in Russia is on the FSB payroll. News media always stops investigating as soon as there is credible information that somebody or their server is located in Russia because if they learn too much then it becomes difficult to discredit them as "possibly being linked to the kremlin". If you used any other nationality to imply that somebody is acting in bad faith on behalf of a hostile foreign government without additional evidence those same journos would call you a racist and try to get you canceled.
- axus 1y agoAre there examples of archive.is falsifying information? I care more about "what you do" than "who you are".
- stormking 1y agoWhen you don't know who runs archive.is, you can also never know if he sold it to someone else (except if either party publically announces it).
- mcphage 1y agoAnd when the information on archive.is starts getting corrupted, those links can be adjusted or removed.
- Yokolos 1y agoWho will catch it, when and how?
- stacktrace 1y agoThis type of possibility really worries me. Archive.is is much closer to actual history in many ways. If the data there starts getting corrupted or biased, there’s no way to know if what was truly there. The idea that the permanent record of the internet could hinge on the ethics of one stranger behind a server rack is deeply unsettling.
- 1y ago
- Rebelgecko 1y agoDoes wiki only allow people to vote sources where the owner is known?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- pwdisswordfishs 1y ago"wiki"?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- excalibur 1y ago[flagged]
- UncleSlacky 1y ago.is is Iceland, not Israel (that's .il).
- inglor_cz 1y agoWhy Israel? From the TLD? IS is Iceland. Israel would be IL.
- darrenf 1y agoNot sure if your assumption was based on the TLD, but `.is` is Iceland, not Israel (which is `.il`).
- excalibur 1y agoTy to everyone who pointed this out. I have a feeling I've googled it several times, and then promptly forgot. Maybe it will stick this time.
- stormking 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jojobas 1y agoWe also know archive.org has removed pages some "important" people didn't like.