Good Lord what a dumb idea.
Maybe It Should Be Illegal To Instantly Delete A Website's Archives - Aftermath
Submitted 2 months ago by alex@jlai.lu to technology@lemmy.world
https://aftermath.site/game-informer-archives-closed-illegal
Comments
IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 2 months ago
jungle@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Stopped reading after the first paragraph.
todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 2 months ago
He waits till the last paragraph to admit that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, which is weird given that he still published all the dumb shit he said in the preceding paragraphs.
kevindqc@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Yep.
“a clown show of a company”
Wow, I’m sure this will be a good and unbiased article! /s
teft@lemmy.world 2 months ago
We can’t get companies to clean up toxic waste sites that they create yet the government thinks they can get companies to backup a website?
peanuts4life@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
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 2 months ago
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.
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
, 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, which recently 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 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.
todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 2 months ago
So this guy’s argument is that companies with commercial websites should be forced by the government to keep their websites online for some predetermined amount of time after announcing that they will be shutting down, so that other people can pilfer the content, on the grounds that shutting down a website includes relinquishing all property rights to the content hosted there?
I’m gonna go ahead and guess that this guy isn’t a lawyer.
Also, and maybe this is a stretch, but this article expresses a suspicious amount of concern for integrity in games journalism…
sugartits@lemmy.world 2 months ago
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.
muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 months ago
That being said, if a third party, like the Internet Archive, wants to archive it they should have every right.
funtrek@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months ago
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.
Metz@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I’m not sure if i can agree with that. A third party cannot simply override the rights of the owner. If i want my website gone, i want it gone from everywhere. no exception.
That kinda also goes in the whole “Right to be forgotten” direction. I have absolute sovereignty over my data. This includes websites created by me. If i want it gone, it will be gone.
evatronic@lemm.ee 2 months ago
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.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 2 months ago
This is just like AI scraping
voracitude@lemmy.world 2 months ago
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, I’d be okay with some kind of heritage system for preserving the internet.
grue@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Copyright law itself is supposed to be such a law (at least in the US), by the way.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 2 months ago
You can archive it without keeping it “up”.