By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

Post by adventured » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 10:58 PM UTC

lucasmullens wrote: post #33

nilkn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I noticed a month or two ago that certain sites seem to be excluded even from internet archives like the Wayback Machine. The first example I stumbled on was Snopes. I only noticed because I saw a Snopes link on Reddit where the thumbnail was clearly different from the live version; the thumbnail appeared to show a human-like baby in the womb, whereas the live version had that edited out. Example: https://web.archive…

I get "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine." To my understanding websites can chose to not be included in the Wayback Machine.

Post by chongli » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 11:01 PM UTC

schoen wrote: post #59

chongli wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, if they are archived at one point and later decide to be excluded then all of the archives for that domain are deleted retroactively. This means that a valuable site can be archived for years but if the domain lapses and gets bought up by somebody who decides to exclude the Wayback Machine then all of that precious content is destroyed even though the destroyer never owned it! I feel like we’re in the…

I don't think your interpretation of the latter case is quite right. In my understanding, the Archive is willing to disable display of the site content retroactively due to a new robots.txt, but they won't delete that content. It will still be present in their files.

Post by mdszy » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 11:02 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #16

mdszy wrote: post #10

Why would you trust a for-profit company to archive anything and care? They don't. It's unreasonable to expect anything different. If you want things archived, non-profit solutions exist, or you should be doing it yourself and making sure the content is shared among people who are also able to archive it.

If you want things archived, non-profit solutions exist You seem to be under the impression that non-profits don't ever go out of business, which is completely untrue. I'm not saying that for-profits are the solution, but maybe something like a trusted .gov or network of trusted .edus would be better.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 11:17 PM UTC

mindgam3 wrote: post #58

dageshi wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it well documented that the human moderators who do exist at places like facebook and youtube end up having their mental health screwed after they watch so much disturbing content? Just throwing human moderators at the problem probably has more cost than just the salaries involved.

I am well aware that human moderators are currently treated like crap by Big Tech, and that their mental health is suffering as a result. When I say "throw more money at the problem", I mean, hire a lot more of them, and treat them all better. The alternatives are 1. Algorithms, which always going to fail in human rights type "edge cases" like the ones described in the article, and which really shouldn't be seen as e…

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 11:19 PM UTC

mdszy wrote: post #64

archgoon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"To organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible" Because they claimed they cared about this sort of thing. For a while, it seemed as if they meant it.

Again, why would you believe them? Use a couple of brain cells and realize that maybe, just maybe, the things that corporations say aren't exactly true most of the time.