this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2024
328 points (91.4% liked)

Technology

59211 readers
2517 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sugartits@lemmy.world 160 points 2 months ago (10 children)

What? No. What utter nonsense.

I should be able to remove a website that I created and paid for without there being some silly law that I have to archive it.

As the owner, it's up to me if I want it up or not. After all, I'm paying for the bloody thing.

[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org 61 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The vast majority of regular internet users never think of things from this perspective because they've never been in a position of running a public facing website. To most people, the Internet is just there to be taken for granted like the public street and park outside someone's house. All the stuff on it just exists there by itself. That's also why we have issues with free speech online, where people expect certain rights that don't exist, because these aren't publicly owned websites and people aren't getting that.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

To most people, the Internet is just there to be taken for granted like the public street and park outside someone’s house.

Both of which require maintenance that most people don't think about...

[–] Jtotheb@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (4 children)

And both of which impact its users’ lives, thus why the users feel they should have a say in what’s done with the space, even if they aren’t the owners of the space

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] superkret@feddit.org 11 points 2 months ago

Maybe the internet should be treated more like public infrastructure. If everyone communicates primarily online, the lack of freedom of speech on online platforms is a problem. And the sudden disappearance of a service people depend on, too (not that I think this website is a good example).

[–] lambda@programming.dev 7 points 2 months ago
[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 41 points 2 months ago (37 children)

That being said, if a third party, like the Internet Archive, wants to archive it they should have every right.

[–] funtrek@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Maybe for sites from corporations or similar sources. But people should have always have the right to be forgotten. And in fact in some countries they do have this right.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 23 points 2 months ago

Want to be forgotten is about personally identifiable information. Other work, which is covered under copyright, which means if someone has legally obtained a copy of it, as long as they're not distributing it, is their right to do whatever the fuck they want with it. Even hold it until the copyright expires at which point they can publish it as much as they want.

[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A "Library of Congress" for published web content maybe. Some sort of standard that allows / requires websites that publish content on oublic-facing sites to also share a permanent copy with an archive, without having the archive have to scrape it.

Sort of like how book publishers send a copy to the LoC.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)
[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Ehh, I halfway agree, but there is value in keeping historical stuff around. Heritage laws exist in a good number of countries so that all the cultural architecture doesn't get erased by developers looking to turn a quick buck or rich people who think that 500 year old castle could really use an infinity pool hot tub; there are strict requirements for a building to be heritage-listed but once they are, the owner is required by law to maintain it to historical standards.

I only halfway disagree because you're right, forcing people to pay for something has never sat right with me generally. As long as the laws don't bite people like you and me, e.g. there are relatively high requirements for something to be considered "culturally relevant" enough to preserve, I'd be okay with some kind of heritage system for preserving the internet.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] wowbagger@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago

We as a society gives your protections through copyright, why can we not let that protection come with some requirements?

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Individuals should be allowed. Corporations shouldn't.

[–] DudeDudenson@lemmings.world 4 points 2 months ago

Yup that's why internet archive is a thing, a site should not be forced to host their content forever but the hivemind in lemmy has a hard on against any and all corporate entities and they'll justify any kind of over reach as long as it's against one

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] dsilverz@thelemmy.club 45 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's a complicated matter if we consider things such as the GDPR's "Right to be forgotten".

[–] db2@lemmy.world 38 points 2 months ago

Corporations shouldn't have those kinds of rights.

[–] peanuts4life@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why is everyone so mad about this? I mean, it's a salty article, but yeah, it kinda sucks when publications don't give notice before closing down. I think providing the public, including previous contributors, time to archive content is a good practice.

[–] kevindqc@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's a good practice, sure. But as per the headline, the author wants to make it a law. That's why people are not having it.

[–] peanuts4life@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 2 months ago

That's not really what the article is about. The author even concedes that such a law would never, and perhaps never should, happen; rather, he feels that corporations will not adopt best practices of preservation unless compelled, and it pisses him off.

The title is deliberate hyperbolic. He's clearly pissed.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

, it’s a salty article

Actually the author himself is somewhat harmed by this situation. I would be salty too. When I wish to write my CV, I can say: my text have been published at X and Y. Especially nice if it's an important and well known publication. Now a part of his CV is literally erased, he can't access his own texts anymore (not even on Internet Archive). That's... utterly ridiculous. It's a common practice to send the author a copy (or multiple) of the text he has published, he has every right to own a copy of them. Now the copy that was intended to be available to everyone is not available even to him. Something of the sort really has happened to me too when a website I published an article on a site underwent a redesign and now the text just isn't available anymore. Admittedly it's still on IA, but it's an awkward situation.

[–] peanuts4life@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 months ago

Yeah, right? I mean, imagine if YouTube when down and just deleted all the videos. People would be up and arms demanding legislative action. There would be endless lawsuits.

As a creative, you rely on platforms to not obliterate your stuff. At least not immediately. This guy has a horse in the race of this site.

[–] kevindqc@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why wouldn't you save a copy if it's so important to you?

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 months ago

What do you mean by "saving a copy"? I still have the .doc file somewhere in my emails. If I told you I'm a serious published writer, and then you asked me where you can read my texts, and I sent you a .doc that hasn't been proofread, would you take me seriously?

[–] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Good Lord what a dumb idea.

Edit: I like an idiot couldn't help myself and actually read some of this.

Is this an 11 year old?

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Maybe the Web should look more like Freenet or like BitTorrent.

But using a technology working the known way and trying to force conveniences by law seems sisyphean and harmful in many aspects.

If someone wants to keep old versions, let them. But forcing companies to host something is I dunno.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is a strawman towards the actual issue which is the loss of information.

The least they could do is just provide a copy of their material to internet archive or some torrent site.

I think similarly about digital services stopping or hardware no longer getting support. Thats a fine and reasonable economy wise but at least have the moral decency to open source it instead.

The customer always gets screwed and the company somehow gets to keep the money. This case is slightly different, i don't know if you had to pay for access but my sentiment of future use holds.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] higgsboson@dubvee.org 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What is it with people who think everything they don't like should be illegal? Have you never read a history book? Authoritarianism is bad mmkay

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Or maybe writers should just archive their own work. So they can make it available on the Internet Archive when their work becomes inaccessible.

[–] teft@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

We can’t get companies to clean up toxic waste sites that they create yet people think they can get companies to backup a website?

[–] jungle@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Stopped reading after the first paragraph.

[–] kevindqc@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Yep.

"a clown show of a company"

Wow, I'm sure this will be a good and unbiased article! /s

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›