edit: adjusted title slightly

  • abofim@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    op forgot to mention that it is a "provisional, read-only manner,” according to founder Brewster Kahle.

  • Lojcs@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    …Google started adding links to archived websites in the Wayback Machine

    They better be compensating it…

    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I don’t agree. Free linking has always been a vitally important part of the open internet. The principle that if I make something available on a specific URL, others can access it, and I don’t get to charge others for linking to a public URL is one of the core concepts of the internet itself.

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        This view is a bit naive in that it doesn’t take into account a lot of variables. It favors established large actors in their ability to extract and accumulate ever more value from the ones they link.

        • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          And, with respect, this view is more naive (IMHO) because it’s focused by size of company, and you can’t do that. You can’t have one set of laws for small companies and another set of laws for large companies.

          So if Google has to pay to link to IA, then so does DuckDuckGo and any other small upstart search engine that might want to make a ‘wayback machine this site!’ button.

          Google unquestionably gets value from the sites they link to. But if that value must be paid, then every other search engine has to pay it also, including little ones like DDG. That basically kills search engines as a concept, because they simply can’t work on that model.

          Thus I think your view is more naive, because you’re just trying to stick it to Google rather than considering the full range of effects your policy would have.

          • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            You can’t have one set of laws for small companies and another set of laws for large companies.

            This is false. We can, and we do. Antitrust laws are one example off the top of my head. There are probably others. The assumption that every actor has to pay the same price is false as well. There are countless examples for this.

      • AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Google killed off their own cached pages last month and they’re now using IA as a replacement. Free linking is definitely important, but this is Google we’re talking about, and them using IA to save money - this feels a lot more exploitative if Google isn’t funding them in some way.

        • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I had not realized that. They should absolutely be allowed to do it, but it’s super shitty of them to basically offload that cost onto IA. IA of course would be well within their rights to try and monetize it. Look at incoming traffic that deep links a cached page and has a Google.com referrer, and throw a splash page or top banner asking for donation.

    • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      You can (well, could) put in any live URL there and IA would take a snapshot of the current page on your request. They also actively crawl the web and take new snapshots on their own. All of that counts as ‘writing’ to the database.

      • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Not just websites. Basically any digital media. From PDFs, book scans, manuals, floppy disks, CDs, basically anything even remotely worth archiving

        • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yep, but I didn’t mention that because it’s not a part of the “Wayback Machine”, it’s just the general “Internet Archive” business of archiving media, which is for now still completely unavailable. (I’ve uploaded dozens of public-domain books there myself, and I’m really missing it…)

  • dread@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    What’s frustrating is that the ones who claimed to have done this are self-proclaimed “hacktivists”. You’re stupid if you thing the Internet Archive is the enemy in this day and age.

      • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Some anonymous group claimed it was attack on USA for supporting ethnic cleansing in Palestine. This is why they did something that benefited Disney and Nintendo. Makes perfect sense!