11–20 of 62 posts
Is it likely that the Executive Branch would try to exert control over it to remove "inconvenient" data?
Is it likely that the Executive Branch would try to exert control over it to remove "inconvenient" data?
I've heard it has already happened. Specifically the internet archive removed vidoes of the TempleOS developer Terry Davis' live streams because of problematic content. If the internet archive is already curated for content then yeah there is a 100% chance that there will be more curation of content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine having to delete their 100PB of warez.
Wait til you hear about my local library. You can walk in and read or borrow any book without paying!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard it has already happened. Specifically the internet archive removed vidoes of the TempleOS developer Terry Davis' live streams because of problematic content. If the internet archive is already curated for content then yeah there is a 100% chance that there will be more curation of content.
Kiwifarms as well. They are a bit of a pushover when it comes to controversy.
Does anyone have any facts/citations on if this is a myth/coping mechanism I created, or reality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kiwifarms as well. They are a bit of a pushover when it comes to controversy.
I thought Archive just removed access, but kept the content. I know that from a user perspective that is a distinction without a difference, but for posterity it matters. Does anyone have any facts/citations on if this is a myth/coping mechanism I created, or reality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine having to delete their 100PB of warez.
Wait til you hear about my local library. You can walk in and read or borrow any book without paying!
Back in the days when things were sane my first thought reading this headline would have been: Nice, that‘s sounds official and important. Nowadays my first thought is: Wait, does this mean Trump can mess around with this?