4 ms·

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

by subarctic 18d ago

msephton 17d ago
I'd pay for it, but only if they implemented the changes the community of users have been requesting for years.
- carlosjobim 17d ago
  No matter what they did, you'd have a new excuse for why you won't pay.
  - msephton 17d 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 17d 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 17d ago
        If you make up a person to insult then yeah it's still ad hominem.
    - carlosjobim 17d 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 17d 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 17d 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 17d 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 17d 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 17d ago
    If the money was guaranteed to only be used to pay the costs, there probably wouldn't be any problems
    - usr1106 17d ago
      No. What happened to their remote library scheme? They did not make if for profit, but still...
  - usr1106 17d 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 17d 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 17d ago
bee_rider 17d 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 17d 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 17d 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 17d 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?

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

msephton 17d ago

I'd pay for it, but only if they implemented the changes the community of users have been requesting for years.

carlosjobim 17d ago
No matter what they did, you'd have a new excuse for why you won't pay.
- msephton 17d 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 17d 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 17d ago
      If you make up a person to insult then yeah it's still ad hominem.
  - carlosjobim 17d 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 17d 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 17d 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 17d 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 17d 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 17d ago
  If the money was guaranteed to only be used to pay the costs, there probably wouldn't be any problems
  - usr1106 17d ago
    No. What happened to their remote library scheme? They did not make if for profit, but still...
- usr1106 17d 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 17d 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 17d ago

bee_rider 17d 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 17d 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 17d 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 17d 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?