Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about I2P?
All privacy is an illusion, the government can read your thoughts, your neighbors are secretly informants, etc etc. Tor is fine especially for onion sites. You just have to understand the limitations. (I2P is also good.)
News outlets are limiting the Internet Archive’s access to their journalism
111–120 of 130 posts
Re: News outlets are limiting the Internet Archive’s access to their journalism
#112Or maybe, just maybe these news sites shouldn't be shipping 40MB JS bloated, ad infected websites. You're a news station just ship the words, make people pay for the images. This keeps bandwidth down for non payers, and foots the bill for those who do use the bandwidth. You pay for what you use, and reduce the overhead while you're at it.
1. Is the idea that the primary costs for such news sources are hosting costs? 2. And that if news sites offered the text for free but paywalled images they'd be more sustainable than they are now?
1. In the direct relation of the cost of the website, yes. Mainly in news sites like CNN, Fox, MSNBC. The articles are usually already written for TV.
2. As profitable? No. Sustainable? Yes.
Re: News outlets are limiting the Internet Archive’s access to their journalism
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather let Archive block access to that specific article for a while, but still archiving from the start.
In effect, robots.txt should have an "embargo" directive?
I dont know if this is still the case but if I told IA via robots.txt not to archive my site, it would still crawl it, archive it but not display it until I shut the site down. Once robots.txt was no longer reachable they would display the archived content. The only way to stop that was to start the site back up making robots.txt reachable and wait for them to crawl it again.
Re: News outlets are limiting the Internet Archive’s access to their journalism
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
You people need to stop saying this. You're being greedy when you buy groceries from a cheaper supermarket. You're being greedy when you negotiate your salary or choose a job based on pay, or anything where you're trying to get more stuff for yourself. Those things are all perfectly good behaviors, they make the world more productive, so everyone wins overall. Greed isn't a problem. Spite? No evidence of that. They p…
> Greed isn't a problem. you listed 1. buying the cheapest groceries you can reasonably find 2. trying to get the highest salary you can 3. literally any time you try to get more for yourself that's a weak list from which to conclude that greed isn't a problem, especially since in the case of 1. and 2. someone's making money off you, the person who's supposedly greedy in these scenarios.
The beauty of capitalism is that both parties can benefit from trade.
Re: News outlets are limiting the Internet Archive’s access to their journalism
#115I'm surprised this didn't happen earlier and genuinely curious why. Decades ago the first time for me to see a redundant server setup was within a local newspaper's office. So it's likely not because people aren't tech-savvy or anything.
Re: News outlets are limiting the Internet Archive’s access to their journalism
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Greed isn't a problem. you listed 1. buying the cheapest groceries you can reasonably find 2. trying to get the highest salary you can 3. literally any time you try to get more for yourself that's a weak list from which to conclude that greed isn't a problem, especially since in the case of 1. and 2. someone's making money off you, the person who's supposedly greedy in these scenarios.
The beauty of capitalism is that both parties can benefit from trade.
why did anyone trade prior to capitalism?
Re: News outlets are limiting the Internet Archive’s access to their journalism
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
People don't hate micropayments because it's Cloudflare promoting them, it's because it truly is a shit idea, for many reasons. People would equally reject Netflix, if Netflix fooated the idea of replacing the subscription model with pay-per-view micropayments. > ...nobody proposes an alternative solution Such is the human condition - some problems simply have no satisfactory solutions.
I'm absolutely the opposite. I'd do a reasonable pay per view on Netflix, but I don't want 73 different streaming subscriptions draining my account every month.
> I'd do a reasonable pay per view on Netflix
You know it's not going to be reasonable because Netflix management wants to show continued profit growth, ad infinitum.
Streaming micropayments will likely include dynamic pricing, timed availability, $0.99 pilots and $20 season finales, doubled pricing when you choose the ad-free option, , "membership fees" that are a subscription in disguise, among other terrible (for the consumer) tactics.
The pricing model is just one small component of the picture, and it cannot fix systemic problems with the studio model, consolidation, chasing infinite growth, and IP law.
Re: News outlets are limiting the Internet Archive’s access to their journalism
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
The beauty of capitalism is that both parties can benefit from trade.
why did anyone trade prior to capitalism?
Consensual trade between rational actors leads to both of them benefiting. Before capitalism, the ideology which focused on property rights and individual freedoms didn't really have a name...
Re: News outlets are limiting the Internet Archive’s access to their journalism
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest problem with micropayments is that the buyer needs to be anonymous or you'll be creating a massive surveillance apparatus, which is the thing we're trying to get rid of. But existing laws make it difficult to build something like that which is easy for normies to use, so someone either needs to come up with a creative solution or reform the laws.
Well my thought is in this case the buyer is OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google.
If normal people get to be anonymous then you don't know if someone accessing the site is OpenAI, Anthropic or Google, at which point why are they going to pay when anonymous access doesn't?
Also, this works pretty poorly for scrapers because people would just set up massive junk farms to collect micropayments from crawlers, and then either the amounts would be too small for real creators to get anything or anything requiring them just wouldn't get accessed. The latter is probably what a lot of the media companies want, but then if the AI companies aren't paying and the normal users aren't paying, who is?
Re: News outlets are limiting the Internet Archive’s access to their journalism
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Block public access not archival
The reason they're blocking archives is people can go to the archive, to bypass paywalls and avoid targeted adverts, instead of the news site. It's also to prevent AI scrapers harvesting articles.
I meant that news sites should provide an API for Internet Archive to scrape their articles at all times to catch changes, but not provide any public access for an indefinite period of time (as an escrow) but eventually release it once the AI scraping issues blows over.