4 ms·
https://archive.is/TajtJ https://archive.is/TajtJ (2025)
by lexicality 9mo ago
https://archive.is/TajtJ https://archive.is/TajtJ (2025)
- Chris2048 9mo agoI wonder. Would it be possible for any/all submissions to automatically generate (and provide) and archive.is/archive.org link? @dang I can't think of any large downsides, it would mean every submission would have an available snapshot for the given time, and we would no longer need a user comment to provide this.
- rouslyrunn 9mo agoThere’s a big difference between accepting people will post links that just happen to, sometimes get people past paywalls - and operationalising that so it’s the default behaviour
- Chris2048 9mo agoActually I'd say the opposite: If it only happens with paywalled sites it's clear that its purpose it to circumvent paywalls. If you always do it, It's so there is a record of the original site at time of posting.
- technotony 9mo agoIt would also help with sites that can't handle the hacker News traffic load. Happens all the time
- sidewndr46 9mo agodidn't google try this with AMP or whatever? It wasn't very popular
- appreciatorBus 9mo agoOne large downside is that publishers whose paywalls are being circumvented by the act of submitting to HN, would consider legal action against HN.
- Chris2048 9mo agoWhy isn't that already an issue then? archive.is links remain, despite being easy to otherwise detect? IANAL, but it would seem to me HN couldn't be liable, since it is a third party (archive.is/org) caching the site. In fact, I always assumed that's why the links aren't removed.
- appreciatorBus 9mo agoI am also not a lawyer, but I would guess that a court might differentiate between choosing not to actively scour user generated content for archive links, versus choosing to proactively provide those links.
- Chris2048 9mo agoI'd guess otherwise.
- Chris2048 9mo agoTo expand on this; I don't think other forms of active moderation get this pass, you don't get to harbour copyrighted IP, CPP or other illegal material posted on a forum by just not moderating. further, if intent would be a possible defence, I already mentioned that archiving everything looks better than only having links when there are paywalls, active or otherwise. from a moral position, I don't think HN moves the needle wrt enabling bypassing - most if not all HN users are likely fully capable of using archiving sites themselves, if not automating the process themselves.
- appreciatorBus 9mo agoI don't think morality has anything to do with HN's action/lack of action here. They are likely just balancing risk & reward. How much work to enable auto paywall busting? >$0 How much reward? $0 How much extra risk that a publisher will make your life difficult, regardless of morality or the letter of the law? >0% I can't imagine why they would bother when HN users seem happy enough to do the work for free.
- pgwhalen 9mo agoI'm confident that you didn't realize what you were saying, but I really chuckled at "I can't think of any large downsides [in institutionalizing a clearly very legally questionable practice]".
- Chris2048 9mo agoYes, I didn't realize this was a very legally questionable practice, let alone clearly. Can you explain why?
- xhkkffbf 9mo agoThere's a thing called "copyright" and it's kind of like a union, but for people who write or create art. It gives them the right to decide who gets to make a copy. Many of the best sources of news put up a paywall because it's what allows them to pay their reporters. When you make an illicit copy without their permission, you undermine their ability to make a living. In other words, eat.
- Chris2048 9mo agoI asked pgwhalen specifically, so chiming in with a smug/condescending reply isn't welcome. It's also IMHO a misplaced or false criticism, per my other comments in this thread.
- pgwhalen 9mo agoGP’s explanation is better than I would have given and didn’t seem smug or condescending to me - from my perspective it was welcome.
- Chris2048 9mo agoYour own original had the same problem, so let me play it straight; I don't think there is a legal issue, let alone a clear one. You don't think phrasing like "There's a thing called 'copyright'", as if I'm not aware of what copyright is, isn't condescending? Now, either of you relate that concept to a suggestion that HN link to archive.org
- xhkkffbf 9mo agoLarge downsides? How about the news sources going bankrupt? Someone has to pay for reporters.
- SanjayMehta 9mo agoThe sooner some "news sources" go bankrupt the better, especially The Economist.
- DetectDefect 9mo ago> Why do I have to complete a CAPTCHA? > Completing the CAPTCHA proves you are a human and gives you temporary access to the web property. > What can I do to prevent this in the future? > If you are on a personal connection, like at home, you can run an anti-virus scan on your device to make sure it is not infected with malware. Love how actual captcha spyware has turned to victim-blaming to justify its existence.
- Arainach 9mo agoIf malicious or scraping traffic is coming from your IP, it's not victim blaming. AI has ruined everything good and free for everyone except a few oligarchs.
- DetectDefect 9mo ago> If malicious or scraping traffic is coming from your IP, it's not victim blaming But it is not; my IP is a residential address paid for with a credit card associated to a human who visits like 6 websites.
- Arainach 9mo agoThe message is stating that you're seeing a Captcha because suspicious traffic has come from your network. If you're not doing suspicious things, "check that you're not infected with malware" is valid feedback.
- DetectDefect 9mo agoNo, the message is stating that because I don't allow Javascript to fingerprint and commodify my browser. The euphemized nonsense about malware is just an insult to reason at this point.
- expedition32 9mo agoPrivacy is suspicious nowadays.