5 ms·

We used to always "scrape" the wayback machine for any sort of news article we actually paid to consume. I was absolutely shocked by major news sites making ver

We used to always "scrape" the wayback machine for any sort of news article we actually paid to consume. I was absolutely shocked by major news sites making very important edits to an article without any sort of editorial notice! Sadly this sort of thing is probably not really possible anymore, but I can't really blame anyone for making this sort of decision. I can't imagine how much more traffic they get now vs 2021 when we were doing this.

subarctic 19d ago
What if they charged money? Is it something you'd pay for?
- msephton 19d ago
  I'd pay for it, but only if they implemented the changes the community of users have been requesting for years.
  - carlosjobim 19d ago
    No matter what they did, you'd have a new excuse for why you won't pay.
    - msephton 19d ago
      Ah, the old ad hominem attack. How refreshing. But anyway, no, I wouldn't keep finding reasons. I donate to them every year already. Somebody asked if I would be willing to pay and my answer was "yes, but". It would need to be improved because certain aspects of it suck right now, not only the error this post is about. They only need go as far as their forums and github repos to see the community feedback.
      - jakderrida 19d ago
        Is it really an ad hom if he doesn't know the hom? Their reply is 100% based on the content of your post.
        Dylan16807 19d ago
        If you make up a person to insult then yeah it's still ad hominem.
      - carlosjobim 19d ago
        If you're donating, then you are evidently willing to pay without any "buts". So aren't you arguing against your own actions?
        msephton 19d ago
        Not at all. I donate to Internet Archive, but we're talking here about paying for unobstructed access to but one part of their service: Wayback Machine. Two different things.
        carlosjobim 19d ago
        100% of the people who write "I would pay, if..." or "I would pay, but..." are people who are never going to pay even a dime. You might be the exception, and sorry for bunching you up with them. You have paid already by donation. I think that we should all pay when asked for things which we find useful, even if they aren't perfect. If nobody else is offering anything, then we have to take what's being offered. When there's a market, more providers will begin offering their versions.
- bonestamp2 19d ago
  I was thinking the same thing... paid access for high volume users or scrapers could actually help fund the non-profit. Maybe let website owners decide which scrapers are allowed to use their content, or allow them to get paid for use of it. If news and other sites were getting paid, maybe they could go back to optimizing for good content instead of clicks.
  - DaSHacka 19d ago
    I think that would get into murky water really quickly with the rights holders (/content creators) not exactly being thrilled the Wayback Machine is essentially monetizing their IP behind their back.
    - g-b-r 19d ago
      If the money was guaranteed to only be used to pay the costs, there probably wouldn't be any problems
      - usr1106 19d ago
        No. What happened to their remote library scheme? They did not make if for profit, but still...
    - usr1106 19d ago
      Interesting, in all the years I have never noticed that IP has 2 meanings (well probably more...) Yeah, I am an engineer and usually try to avoid the legal BS. Although I hate that AI has made stealing legal if you are big enough.
    - bonestamp2 19d ago
      It wouldn't be behind their back, like I said, "Maybe let website owners decide which scrapers are allowed to use their content, or allow them to get paid for use of it."
      - mitxela 19d ago
- bee_rider 19d ago
  I wonder if there would be concern on their part about appearing to be a company that was basically offering paywall circumvention as a product.
  - cloakley 19d ago
    It wouldnt be a paywall, more like an option for companies to not pay scrappers. At least the payment deviates to the source.
- pantsforbirds 19d ago
  I mean we already paid for the article from the source itself. I guess I'd expect a better "diff" source from them, but if they dont even update the article itself, i guess i wouldn't expect a paid service to have those updates either?
  - pantsforbirds 19d ago
    ah, i think i misunderstood your original post. if you mean the wayback-machine/arkive, then I suspect it'd be hard to justify? You are essentially paying a third-party source to validate that diffs didn't go through on the source material. with llms, at some point it probably becomes easier to use your paid api connection to manage your own cached version yourself?
trompetenaccoun 18d ago
>I was absolutely shocked by major news sites making very important edits to an article without any sort of editorial notice They didn't use to, this has become a thing over the past few years as MSM outlets have completely given up on journalistic standards, including editorial ones.

subarctic 19d ago

What if they charged money? Is it something you'd pay for?

msephton 19d ago
I'd pay for it, but only if they implemented the changes the community of users have been requesting for years.
- carlosjobim 19d ago
  No matter what they did, you'd have a new excuse for why you won't pay.
  - msephton 19d ago
    Ah, the old ad hominem attack. How refreshing. But anyway, no, I wouldn't keep finding reasons. I donate to them every year already. Somebody asked if I would be willing to pay and my answer was "yes, but". It would need to be improved because certain aspects of it suck right now, not only the error this post is about. They only need go as far as their forums and github repos to see the community feedback.
    - jakderrida 19d ago
      Is it really an ad hom if he doesn't know the hom? Their reply is 100% based on the content of your post.
      - Dylan16807 19d ago
        If you make up a person to insult then yeah it's still ad hominem.
    - carlosjobim 19d ago
      If you're donating, then you are evidently willing to pay without any "buts". So aren't you arguing against your own actions?
      - msephton 19d ago
        Not at all. I donate to Internet Archive, but we're talking here about paying for unobstructed access to but one part of their service: Wayback Machine. Two different things.
        carlosjobim 19d ago
        100% of the people who write "I would pay, if..." or "I would pay, but..." are people who are never going to pay even a dime. You might be the exception, and sorry for bunching you up with them. You have paid already by donation. I think that we should all pay when asked for things which we find useful, even if they aren't perfect. If nobody else is offering anything, then we have to take what's being offered. When there's a market, more providers will begin offering their versions.
bonestamp2 19d ago
I was thinking the same thing... paid access for high volume users or scrapers could actually help fund the non-profit. Maybe let website owners decide which scrapers are allowed to use their content, or allow them to get paid for use of it. If news and other sites were getting paid, maybe they could go back to optimizing for good content instead of clicks.
- DaSHacka 19d ago
  I think that would get into murky water really quickly with the rights holders (/content creators) not exactly being thrilled the Wayback Machine is essentially monetizing their IP behind their back.
  - g-b-r 19d ago
    If the money was guaranteed to only be used to pay the costs, there probably wouldn't be any problems
    - usr1106 19d ago
      No. What happened to their remote library scheme? They did not make if for profit, but still...
  - usr1106 19d ago
    Interesting, in all the years I have never noticed that IP has 2 meanings (well probably more...) Yeah, I am an engineer and usually try to avoid the legal BS. Although I hate that AI has made stealing legal if you are big enough.
  - bonestamp2 19d ago
    It wouldn't be behind their back, like I said, "Maybe let website owners decide which scrapers are allowed to use their content, or allow them to get paid for use of it."
    - mitxela 19d ago
bee_rider 19d ago
I wonder if there would be concern on their part about appearing to be a company that was basically offering paywall circumvention as a product.
- cloakley 19d ago
  It wouldnt be a paywall, more like an option for companies to not pay scrappers. At least the payment deviates to the source.
pantsforbirds 19d ago
I mean we already paid for the article from the source itself. I guess I'd expect a better "diff" source from them, but if they dont even update the article itself, i guess i wouldn't expect a paid service to have those updates either?
- pantsforbirds 19d ago
  ah, i think i misunderstood your original post. if you mean the wayback-machine/arkive, then I suspect it'd be hard to justify? You are essentially paying a third-party source to validate that diffs didn't go through on the source material. with llms, at some point it probably becomes easier to use your paid api connection to manage your own cached version yourself?

trompetenaccoun 18d ago

>I was absolutely shocked by major news sites making very important edits to an article without any sort of editorial notice They didn't use to, this has become a thing over the past few years as MSM outlets have completely given up on journalistic standards, including editorial ones.