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

The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 323 posts

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#141

Post by pbhjpbhj »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #116
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In USA. I assume that's where you're talking about. In UK certain libraries can archive (British Library) following a recent change in the law, IIRC. People wanting to access the archive may only do so by physically visiting the library. AFAICT archive.org are flouting copyright law around the World already, they should continue to be cautious about assuming rights IMO.

Archive.org is an accredited library.

Yep, that works for USA law AFAIR, but USA Fair Use is exceptionally liberal compared to other copyright regimes.

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#142

Post by JulianMorrison »

narrator wrote: post #130
JulianMorrison wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no public-interest benefit in hate screeds. Those are memetic viruses with established body counts and should be studied, if at all, in the manner one studies smallpox.

So... people are stupid and easily manipulated. Democracy is just a skinner box run by all the god like people who know better than all the stupid sheep, right?

People are smart but there's a problem with smarts - it's surprisingly easy to talk yourself into something you can't talk yourself out of. High intelligence makes this worse, if anything. Some ideas need to be quarantined because by the time you start doing the "are we the baddies" skit, you've already built Dachau.

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#143

Post by justcorrect »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #122
devmunchies wrote: post #104

> But Mr Graham argued that simply removing false information or offensive content isn’t necessarily the answer. Hateful material need not remain publicly available, he said, but certain researchers and politicians should be able to study it. They're planting the seed and seeing how the public reacts. This is ridiculous! Mark something "controversial", "possibly fake", but don't memory-hole us. An archive only archiv…

There is no public-interest benefit in hate screeds. Those are memetic viruses with established body counts and should be studied, if at all, in the manner one studies smallpox.

Yep, that's why I want to ban all anti-Christian, anti-American, and anti-freedom speech and literature in America. These hate viruses have no place in our Democratic Republic, nor in a civil society.

Or do you have a different OPINION on what's hateful?

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#144

Post by Johnny555 »

seppin wrote: post #85
Johnny555 wrote: post #84

If they really want to be trusted as a source of truth, they need to find a way to publish cryptographic signatures of every page that can be validated to prove that the page was captured when they say it was. Maybe some sort of blockchain. Otherwise there's no reason to trust that an Internet Archive snapshot is an accurate representation of the archived page.

> Maybe some sort of blockchain. Or you know, any other kind of secure database.

Just curious, what kind of secure database lets anyone independently verify the integrity without needing to trust the entity that hosts the database?

I can envision a chain of signatures that lets anyone validate a complete chain of website versions, but am not familiar with a database that allows the same.

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#145

Post by 3xblah »

"Mr Graham said he was an "optimist", but conceded that the archive had not yet saved as much as he would like. Take YouTube, for example: the team is only archiving a "small fraction" of all the videos published each week."

Is it true one can nudge the IA crawlers to archive a page that would otherwise be ignored?

https://blog.archive.org/2017/01/25/see-something-save-somet...

Is this as simple as sending a GET request, something like:

   curl -O /dev/null https://web.archive.org/web/save/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oBh6Ng8bI4^1
1 Are web developers the only ones who use "Overrides" in Chrome DevTools? For example, could users replace external resources such as tracking pixels or JS/CSS that obscures text with their own resource files?

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#146

Post by tpmx »

dredmorbius wrote: post #127
tpmx wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think that. Then I tried volunteering via their IRC channel and was met with some next level hostility. My read is: a) They're doing a job that needs to be done. b) They're relatively flush with cash from donors c) They're not nearly as efficient as they could be. d) The people there seemed more concerned about competition than collaboration. e) Probably most controversial: The organization seems like it ha…

ArchiveTeam is NOT the Internet Archive, though the two groups work closely. If you hit the AT's IRC channel, you probably got bounced or told to go to the discussion side channel. The main ArchiveTeam channel on Efnet is basically for "the house is on fire" emergencies. Normally you'll be asked to bounce to the chat/discussion channel. That may be inconsistently applied. I worked with ArchiveTeam in the G+ shutdown…

As Googler (?) working to give them data you were presumably not "competing" with them. Kind of a separate kind of sitatuation.

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#147

Post by chongli »

OrgNet wrote: post #137
devmunchies wrote: post #104

> But Mr Graham argued that simply removing false information or offensive content isn’t necessarily the answer. Hateful material need not remain publicly available, he said, but certain researchers and politicians should be able to study it. They're planting the seed and seeing how the public reacts. This is ridiculous! Mark something "controversial", "possibly fake", but don't memory-hole us. An archive only archiv…

Apparently, we need a storage capacity breakthrough so that everyone can store everything so that we do not have to relay on what someone else say is acceptable.

That will never work. Data will always expand to use up all available storage. It's like trying to build more roads when your city has a traffic problem. You build roads to reduce traffic and improve commute times, and then more people start commuting from further away.

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#148

Post by DuskStar »

ntzm wrote: post #117
emilfihlman wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>An archive only archiving history they agree with is not worth the funding. 100%. It reduces the entire point to just voluntarily donating to your favourite think tank or political party, not an "archive".

I'd rather not have a manual for starting a neo-nazi race war archived to be honest

You mean you don't want to be able to point at what an organization used to post and perhaps now wants to hide?

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#149

Post by hnaccy »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #134
fromthestart wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

And they would be wrong. Liberation literature is not in the same category as hate screeds. I don't buy the moral abdication you're selling. You know what's evil - it's the stuff full of race hate and misogyny. There is no moral equivalence.

Would a pamphlet against immigration be allowed?

Would a pamphlet against abortion be allowed?

Would a pamphlet against [Islam|Christianity| Judaism|Hinduism] be allowed?

Would a pamphlet against Israel be allowed?

Would a pamphlet against affirmative action be allowed?

Re: The Internet Archive is waging war on misinformation

#150

Post by narrator »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #142
narrator wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... people are stupid and easily manipulated. Democracy is just a skinner box run by all the god like people who know better than all the stupid sheep, right?

People are smart but there's a problem with smarts - it's surprisingly easy to talk yourself into something you can't talk yourself out of. High intelligence makes this worse, if anything. Some ideas need to be quarantined because by the time you start doing the "are we the baddies" skit, you've already built Dachau.

So the smart people or the dumb people need to make the determination as to what are the bad ideas? Or the REALLY SMART PEOPLE like you make that determination? Face it, you're never going to get away from the "benevolent" overseer who figures the truth out for everyone else.

The fundamental flaw is that you're always trying to put everyone on different levels of intellectual responsibility and whenever you do that you fall into an elitist model of governance, which is what the first amendment was specifically designed to prevent.

Post reply on HN