> But, it kind of scares me that they in one sentence say that they will "make our cultural treasures accessible to everyone. Forever." and in the next one asks

> But, it kind of scares me that they in one sentence say that they will "make our cultural treasures accessible to everyone. Forever." and in the next one asks for money to make it happen. "Forever" is a bold statement and I can't be the only one that sees a contradiction in this. I guess what they're saying is: if the money runs out the data will disappear. It's not really a contradiction. It's simply an indication that, to reach their goal, they need financial support. In this sense, it's no different from any other organization - no matter what your storage model is, it's never going to be truly free in the end, so the money will have to come from somewhere. > I've worked closely with archivists and preservationists in the cultural heritage sector and I know that to keep the sacred promise of saving something for an eternity you have to have strategies for what you save in the first place. I'd like to see a well-argued source on this. Selective saving is exactly why old archives are often so incomplete. It seems to me like solving a problem that doesn't exist, and with severe consequences. The Archive is trying to be a sort of modern library of Alexandria, and in today's society, that means taking in content from anybody and everybody. Creation of culture and information has become significantly more decentralized than it has been historically, and archives need to adapt to this new reality.