The only solution is to make visitors do compute. Compressing files for the archive to access other files would be perfect for this.
Cross verify hashes to prevent cheating.
Ez.
An update on Wayback Machine access
121–130 of 374 posts
Re: An update on Wayback Machine access
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think there should be a way for a site to tell an agent it isn't allowed access? I'm not sure where I land on this exactly tbh, so no judgment cast.
I want agents to be able to act on my behalf, that’s the entire point. An agent should be able to do anything I can do sitting at my browser.
Dunno why the downvotes. I feel that is reasonable as well. Owners that block that stuff are doing so only to their detriment.
Re: An update on Wayback Machine access
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want agents to be able to act on my behalf, that’s the entire point. An agent should be able to do anything I can do sitting at my browser.
I suspect most people would be ok with this if they could only do it at the rate and frequency you yourself can do it. The problem is largely one of scale.
Then make agent friendly content. Take the text and make a markdown version.
Re: An update on Wayback Machine access
#124Mad props to the people at the Archive. You are the heros we need in a formerly open internet that is surrendering to evil big corps and closing down free access. The Internet Archive is in a really bad spot being attacked from multiple sides at once. But — while service has not been consistent — they have maintained open access. I can still access anonymously from Tor without Cloudflare or some other centralized gat…
I donate to them every year b/c I fully agree they’re doing a thankless critical job very well.
Re: An update on Wayback Machine access
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah cuz X is fucking shitty, why would I want to give them any traffic?
Then... don't? If it sucks so much why do you need to read the tweets? Great take: "This private website is owned by a man I don't like, so I refuse to pay for it - or even give it the possibility to monetize my traffic with ads!" Still quite mainstream take: "... so I'll use an adblocker on it" Immature take: "This private website that I hate and boycott is also an important part of our culture, but the posts on it…
You're confusing the site for the content on it.
Some of the content is good, the site sucks and is run by a guy who seig-heils crowds.
Even if the content sucked, your post has big "you want to improve `X`, yet you participate in `X`"[0] energy.
0 – https://kitzy.com/content/assets/images/we-should-improve-so...
Re: An update on Wayback Machine access
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if they charged money? Is it something you'd pay for?
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.
It wouldnt be a paywall, more like an option for companies to not pay scrappers. At least the payment deviates to the source.
Re: An update on Wayback Machine access
#127Re: An update on Wayback Machine access
#128Shouldn't the solution be to gate bulk access for automated services for a price? Not just the wayback machine, any personal or corporate website?
My blogs are getting slammed and there are issues with cloudflare or captchas.
Re: An update on Wayback Machine access
#129Re: An update on Wayback Machine access
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Micropayments would solve so many Internet problems. It's not too late to adopt. Content creators could charge by page instead of depending on malware/ad/surveillance revenue. Spam is cut if there's a charge per mail. Scraping abuse goes away, along with a bunch of DDOS garbage. The impact is a few cents per page or mail, negligible for a human. But if you're consuming a trillion pages per day, you'd reconsider.
Micropayments would solve all the problems except for the problem that people absolutely loathe micropayments. Like, vein-popping furiously hate them. Whenever the topic of micropayments for internet content comes up, a bunch of people start talking about payment processors and their floor on prices, and so on. That's not wrong, but it can be designed around and I think it's a scapegoat to avoid confronting the fact…
It doesn't need to be crypto, or payment processor based.
My ideal experience would be I load $20 into the browser somewhere like a wallet in one block (that could be a payment processor step). If I visit a participating page, it decrements my wallet $.01 or whatever.
The downside is the possibility of abuse and tracking by governments, which would have to be handled at the source, not the symptom.