41–50 of 168 posts
Why would you trust a for-profit company to archive anything and care? They don't. It's unreasonable to expect anything different. If you want things archived, non-profit solutions exist, or you should be doing it yourself and making sure the content is shared among people who are also able to archive it.
Youtube and Facebook, while convenient, aren't really appropriate mediums for them to share this sort of footage. Liveleak comes to mind as a service better suited for a public repository of this video. Archival of footage shouldn't be dependent on a third party platform that can, at will, delete every single video on a whim. Likely for this sort of thing a diligent archivist will need to put in the effort of storing…
Exactly. You need something like Internet Archive or better that is archival quality, random internet vandalism-proof and FBI raid-proof.
This is a volume problem that has no real solution. On one hand, it's a shame that this kind of content is getting removed, but on the other, it's also untenable for YouTube to hire thousands upon thousands of video moderators. It's a sad reality that if anyone uploaded content akin to Shoah[1] -- the 9-hour-long Holocaust documentary; a personal favorite and an absolute masterpiece -- it would get promptly removed.…
It's not a volume problem though, because the videos are never removed. They are just effectively delisted. Homeland Security shows up and I guarantee YouTube hands the videos over to them. So YouTube has plenty of space.
Of course that also means that the original complaint of YouTube destroying evidence is also bogus, but answering a bogus complaint with a bogus excuse as the pro YouTube crowd seems to be doing doesn't really get us anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. You need something like Internet Archive or better that is archival quality, random internet vandalism-proof and FBI raid-proof.
The Islamic State posted their content for many years on the Internet Archive. I believe IA did take down content in some cases.
But to find a provider of public access to archives more expansive than YouTube's, well, that's improvement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The number of times I've taken a google search that gave me useless results, copied-and-pasted it into duck-duck-go, and immediately found what I'm looking for, is astounding. I do think that they are starting to lose the power-user userbase when it comes to browsers and search engines. But their email, docs/sheets/whatever, drive, and now their DNS registrar services are all cemented into business flow. It makes sen…
> The number of times I've taken a google search that gave me useless results, copied-and-pasted it into duck-duck-go, and immediately found what I'm looking for, is astounding. I'll bet it's dwarfed by the number of times I get useful results from Google and total garbage from DDG. Earlier today I searched for "CADT syndrome" to figure out what another HN comment meant by it. Both engines automatically correct that…
Youtube and Facebook, while convenient, aren't really appropriate mediums for them to share this sort of footage. Liveleak comes to mind as a service better suited for a public repository of this video. Archival of footage shouldn't be dependent on a third party platform that can, at will, delete every single video on a whim. Likely for this sort of thing a diligent archivist will need to put in the effort of storing…
Exactly. You need something like Internet Archive or better that is archival quality, random internet vandalism-proof and FBI raid-proof.
I'm sure if they started doing this the Twitter outrage warriors wouldn't be happy about it and add to the difficulty of their job.
While NYT themselves just shadow-edited the article about HRC calling Tulsi a Russian asset to a Republican asset. Video from Tim Pool about it: https://youtu.be/tzTod38VS8c
At [1] the quote is:
Hillary Clinton waded into the Democratic primary on Friday by suggesting that Russia was “grooming” Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii as a third-party candidate for president.
By the next day at [2] it had changed to:
Hillary Clinton waded into the Democratic primary on Friday by suggesting that Russia was backing Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii for president and that Republicans were “grooming” her as a third-party candidate.
The NY Times published a correction:
Correction: Oct. 23, 2019 An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an element of Hillary Clinton's recent comments about Representative Tulsi Gabbard. While Mrs. Clinton said that a Democratic presidential candidate was "the favorite of the Russians," and an aide later confirmed the reference was to Ms. Gabbard, Mrs. Clinton's remark about the “grooming” of a third-party candidate in the 2020 race was in response to a question about the Republicans’ strategy, not about Russian intervention.
This matches other reporting of the same interview. Politco reported it like this[3]:
Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee, made the comments on the podcast hosted by David Plouffe, who managed former President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. Clinton also said that Republicans could boost Gabbard to become a third-party “spoiler”
Conclusion: The NY Times did the correct thing in updating their reporting, and in publishing the correction. The reporting is now more accurate that it was initially.
[3] https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/18/hillary-clinton-tul...