Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Keep Our Servers Running

blog.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 289 posts

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#141

Post by miki123211 »

eis wrote: post #118
theletterf wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do, but require that an incident is raised claiming fraud, etc. I guess they want to avoid misuse of this feature.

This is completely normal. You can't just issue a chargeback because you feel like you want your money back after the fact. They want to know what went wrong. It could be fraud but it could be also misleading checkout experience and other reasons. The merchant is charged often a fee for a chargeback on the order of $15 and it might result in penalties. So, if you feel like you've been charged unfairly (e.g. product n…

Exactly this.

In both US and EU, chargebacks are a general consumer protection tool, implemented by card networks to make you less afraid of using them with potentially-untrustworthy merchants, even when not legally required.

They can be used for any kind of legitimate grievance, outright fraud being just one of them. If you book a hotel and the room is not up to the standards on their website, take pictures, take screenshots and chargeback.

They are not, however, a way to cancel a subscription you decide you no longer want (incidentally, neither is cancelling your card). Ask your lawyer, but this is actually illegal and considered fraud in many places. If you make a dumb choice, you have to live with the consequences or follow the contractual route.

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#142

Post by prirun »

I read that Internet Archive keeps 2 copies of all their data. Storj, the decentralized storage service, is currently in Chap 11 bankruptcy, mostly IMO because of incompetent management. They pay their node operators, the guys that actually maintain the hard drive space, $1.35/TB/mo to store data. (However it costs Storj 1.8x that because of erasure coding). They still have way more available capacity going unused, so it's likely they could lower the payout rate even further and have talked about doing that.

Internet Archive could buy Storj, probably for not much, keep 1 copy of their archive on the IA custom server setup they have now, keep the other copy on Storj, and free up half of the IA disk space. Storj automagically uploads data to 54 nodes, any 29 of which can reconstruct the original data (54/29 is where the 1.8 expansion factor occurs).

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#143

Post by smolder »

zorked wrote: post #136
ssl-3 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's OK for a donor that provides matching funds to wish for, and to be granted, anonymity. It's also OK for primary donors to be suspicious of this for any reason that they choose, including no reason at all. Maybe the matching-funds donor is all peachy and clean. Maybe they're the root of all evil. We don't know. This lack of knowledge doesn't let people make an informed decision, and people are allowed to seek to…

> Maybe the matching-funds donor is all peachy and clean. Maybe they're the root of all evil. Money going from the root of all evil to the Internet Archive? Two cakes.

I could see it being a Zuckerberg "charity" thing motivated by a need for training data, so, yeah.

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#144

Post by smolder »

abeyer wrote: post #38

"Keep running" is interesting phrasing, given that wayback has been serving me nothing but some mix of timeouts, 429 errors, and "Temporarily Offline" messages for weeks.

I've watched whole video series from their archives. What are you doing to get throttled?

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#145

Post by miki123211 »

shevy-java wrote: post #74
theletterf wrote: post #53

Be careful: paying with Google Pay is extremely easy and the default setting is monthly recurrence. If you're not logged in, the only way to cancel (as far as I know) is by sending an email, which is incredibly precarious.

This makes Google more powerful. I don't want to yield money via any Google services ever.

Google Pay and Apple Pay are basically nicer UIs for your Visa / Mastercard, with some extra privacy protections on top (E.G. they use disposable credit card numbers that merchants can't use to correlate your transactions at different stores).

They offer similar possibilities to what Visa and Mastercard offer, including changing your transaction amount post-factum (E.G. Uber everywhere, restaurants in the US for the weird way Americans do tip processing, some hotels for the minibar / phone / TV bill) and recurring charges.

They're not the same thing as in-app purchases, which are for digital content only, which Apple and Google charge much higher commissions on, and which have a much more pleasant cancellation / management UI. With IAP, Google / Apple is the merchant from your bank's perspective, this is not the case with Apple / Google Pay.

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#147

Post by DrewADesign »

tossandthrow wrote: post #109

2:1 by who? That is not written. These types of schemes ring very poorly in my head for charity. If someone has the ability to give 2$ for every 1$ I give, why are they only giving on contingence? Just give the money!

The idea is that if I have $200,000 to give to a charity and I give $200,000, my $200,000 yields $200,000 for the charity.

If I say I’m going to match other people’s money 2:1 and that convinces people donate $90,000, my $180,000 yields $270,000 for the charity. I’d probably have written off the 200k anyway and just toss in the rest after, or throw it at another good cause.

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#150

Post by DaSHacka »

bulder wrote: post #101
dakolli wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean, I didnt make it up... Its detailed on the archive.today wikipedia page. The media barrons in the west have bribed the US government to pursue archive criminally on their behalf for helping people bypass paywalls. https://www.theverge.com/news/815691/fbi-subpoena-archive-is...

That's great, how does that absolve the archive.today maintainer's bad faith activities, including creating a country-wall?

Because if he's being targeted by the feds, he obviously he doesn't want his private information being published by some guy who self-admittedly did it on a whim?

Is this really that hard to understand?

Post reply on HN