Technologically no. Reddit sends out the data to 10s of millions of users as part of their normal operations. They need to try to block those who collect that data for the IA. Reddit has the very short end of the stick.
The problem is that evading such counter-measures may be criminal in the US. Obviously, EU laws are much harsher.
I don’t know their take-down policy. Could be privacy, could be copyright.
I think they are shielded by Section 230 under US law. That means, if they don’t do take-downs when requested, they become liable just like the original uploader. So it depends on whether they think they can defend something as fair use. IDK what they do with requests under non-US laws.
Thanks for your detailed explanation.
When I look that up it’s specifically about ‘defamatory, illegal, or harmful content’.
That would be understandable to take down.
Never encountered that myself, the cases I’m referring to were totally legal content AFAIK.
Only very damaging or proof of something.
As a hypothetical example, let’s say an organisation posts it’s associated with Epstein in 1999 which now obviously is very inconvenient.
They understandably remove it from their website but it should stil be on the archive if captured before.
However, in similar controversial real cases it wasn’t.
So it appears certain forces have more influence to get them to remove content beyond what’s legally required.
Since then I always screenshot the archive page.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Technologically no. Reddit sends out the data to 10s of millions of users as part of their normal operations. They need to try to block those who collect that data for the IA. Reddit has the very short end of the stick.
The problem is that evading such counter-measures may be criminal in the US. Obviously, EU laws are much harsher.
SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Not to mention all of Asia, South America, Africa…
Bloomcole@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Slightly related, can you explain how (a few times for me) an archived page I tried to revisit got erased?
General_Effort@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I don’t know their take-down policy. Could be privacy, could be copyright.
I think they are shielded by Section 230 under US law. That means, if they don’t do take-downs when requested, they become liable just like the original uploader. So it depends on whether they think they can defend something as fair use. IDK what they do with requests under non-US laws.
Bloomcole@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Thanks for your detailed explanation.
When I look that up it’s specifically about ‘defamatory, illegal, or harmful content’.
That would be understandable to take down.
Never encountered that myself, the cases I’m referring to were totally legal content AFAIK.
Only very damaging or proof of something.
As a hypothetical example, let’s say an organisation posts it’s associated with Epstein in 1999 which now obviously is very inconvenient.
They understandably remove it from their website but it should stil be on the archive if captured before.
However, in similar controversial real cases it wasn’t.
So it appears certain forces have more influence to get them to remove content beyond what’s legally required.
Since then I always screenshot the archive page.