Internet Archive Adds Fact Checks To Explain Web Page Takedowns (engadget.com) 115
AmiMoJo writes: Fact checking is increasingly a mainstay of the modern internet, and that now includes "dead" web pages. The Internet Archive has started adding fact checks and context to Wayback Machine pages to explain just why they were removed. If a page was part of a disinformation campaign or pulled due to a policy violation, a conspicuous yellow banner will explain as much. The checks come from a variety of well-established outlets, including FactCheck.org, Politifact, the AP and the Washington Post.
The archivists saw the fact checks as striking a balance between historical preservation and acknowledging the problems with resurfacing false info. It hoped users would "better understand what they are reading" in the archives. It's also striving for neutrality -- one banner for context explained that including a page in the Wayback Machine "should not be seen" as endorsing the content.
The archivists saw the fact checks as striking a balance between historical preservation and acknowledging the problems with resurfacing false info. It hoped users would "better understand what they are reading" in the archives. It's also striving for neutrality -- one banner for context explained that including a page in the Wayback Machine "should not be seen" as endorsing the content.
Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Well.... (Score:2)
But they can't take the sky from me ðY
Re:Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is: Can we trust the fact checkers?
The quote stays appropriate and that's why I put it there.,
Re: (Score:1)
Nice conspiracy theory ya get there. Completely circular. Yes, we can trust the fact checkers because, gasp, they provide facts with evidence. They don't say, "I'm a billionaire" without providing evidence for the claim. They lay out their financial statements, their bank account values, property values and so on to show that yes, they are worth at least $1 billion.
By your logic, me saying Lindsey Graham has an out of wedlock child by a Puerto Rican maid is perfectly valid. Which it is. It's the truth. I
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Kindly explain why the con artist's campaign legal adviser went on RT [msn.com], the height of propaganda, to attack the free press in this country and defend the abject failure of the con artist when it comes to a response to the covid pandemic. Mind you, the entire U.S. intelligence operation has stated, unequivocally, Russia interfered in the 2016 election. So why would his campaign legal adviser be meeting with a propaganda news organization?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The whole russia gate was a complete bullshit story
Sigh.
Why do we have to keep covering this ground over and over again? It's been demonstrated until the cows come home that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. That Russia worked to get Trump elected. That they are doing it again.
The only thing not proven that was whether or not the Trump team actually colluded with Russia.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
See the Mueller report - it conclusively states NO collusion, no conspiracy
Incorrect. See the Mueller Report.
From https://time.com/5610317/muell... [time.com] (and hundreds of other sources)
= = =
Myth: "Mueller found no collusion."
Response:
Mueller spent almost 200 pages [in his report] describing "numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign." He found that "a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged
Re: (Score:1)
Don't read someone's summary, read the actual report [justice.gov]. Specifically see PDF page 189 (report page 181) where it states:
The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law—including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371’s offenses clause.
The Office also did not charge any campaign official or associate with a conspiracy under Section 371’s defraud clause. That clause criminalizes participating in an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the U.S. government or its agencies through deceitful or dishonest means. ... The investigation did not establish any agreement among Campaign officials— or between such officials and Russia-linked individuals—to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function of a government agency during the campaign or transition period. And, as discussed in Volume I, Section V.A, supra, the investigation did not identify evidence that any Campaign
official or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the Office charged, namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section II, supra. Accordingly, the Office did not charge any Campaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the Russia-related contacts described in Section IV above.
What does that mean? No collusion - no conspiracy. None. That's what was found. Denying it is simply denying reality.
Re: (Score:2)
What does that mean? No collusion - no conspiracy. None. That's what was found. Denying it is simply denying reality.
You should probably focus on your reading comprehension skills before you claim to understand what that report says. You do not understand the law regarding collusion, clearly. Collusion in this case has a very specific legal definition that you are not grasping. It also does not say that what the Trump campaign did was ethical, for that matter.
Honestly the only evidence you need as to whether or not Trump would engage in such unethical behavior comes from his own mouth where he has actively encouraged i
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So - you'll take jokes and words, and not facts as actually investigated and proven? Really?
You have a strange definition of facts. You also have no argument to refute the fact that his behavior is unethical, clearly, or you would have already made it.
The President of the United States of America does not joke about the kinds of activities you expect a dictator in a banana republic to joke about. The fact that Mitch McConnell lacks the balls to publicly censure Trump is reprehensible. No constitution loving US citizen ought to be justifying this behavior and the fact that you are doing so sugges
Re: (Score:2)
Any fact checker that didn't renig on the "Trump is a Russian Agent" conspiracy theory is not to believed.
Anyone who writes "renig" is a "dumbass"
Don't use words you don't understand. You will come off as being a lot smarter than you apparently are.
Don't confuse a spelling mistake with words used correctly, dumbass. You come off as being a lot dumber than most assume.
"Renig is a common misspelling of renege, and it is used widely and colloquially for "flaking," "backing out," or "changing one's mind"..."
Re: Well.... (Score:2)
Yes, it is widely used by idiots.
Don't be an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is widely used by idiots.
Don't be an idiot.
Go talk to those putting that idiotic word in the dictionary then. Much like dumbass, it's still a valid word, and was used accurately.
And if you think you're defending anti-racism, educate yourself. It's fucking Latin, derived from the word negate.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice conspiracy theory ya get there. Completely circular. Yes, we can trust the fact checkers because, gasp, they provide facts with evidence. They don't say, "I'm a billionaire" without providing evidence for the claim. They lay out their financial statements, their bank account values, property values and so on to show that yes, they are worth at least $1 billion.
There are plenty of "rich" who consider themselves -illionaires by nothing more than stock holdings.
There are plenty of narcissists who consider themselves -illionaires with nothing more than their perceived social value.
Castles. Artwork. Cars. Sacred scrolls and writings (wait, the Vatican is worth how much?!?) Greed feeding Arrogance, can defend it's own stupidity all fucking day long. The "rich" have been doing it for thousands of years. Good luck trying to put a finite definition around that. B
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic, me saying Lindsey Graham has an out of wedlock child by a Puerto Rican maid is perfectly valid. Which it is. It's the truth. It just hasn't been reported. It's a know issue which has been kept quiet.
Oh, so now we're going to take "fact checking", and devolve it into another flavor of Cancel Culture? Great. Like the world needs more of that shit. Can't wait to read your obituary where we will "fact check" the hell out of your existence and highlight every moral indiscretion you have done, all in the name of Sheer Fucking Hypocrisy.
Might as well set up the Supreme Court in Salem again, and get plenty of firewood for the stakes. I mean after all, even IF Lindsey Graham was an excellent Representative
Re: (Score:1)
Remember, personal transgressions are the bread and butter of politics. Remember, Bill Clinton didn't have the "character" to be president, a check that seems to have been dropped in more recent years when most of those accusers ended up being sleazier than Bill. Also, hypocrisy is a standard feature of politics as well, which makes both side work extra hard to uncover dirt on the opponents while hiding it on their own side.
Actually talking about issues of importance is seemingly of low importance in poli
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, personal transgressions are the bread and butter of politics. Remember, Bill Clinton didn't have the "character" to be president, a check that seems to have been dropped in more recent years when most of those accusers ended up being sleazier than Bill. Also, hypocrisy is a standard feature of politics as well, which makes both side work extra hard to uncover dirt on the opponents while hiding it on their own side.
Yes, and what exactly should we be doing as a society to stop the incessant shit-slinging and vitriol, being championed by both "Representatives" and their loyal cheerleaders, rooting for this Red vs. Blue gang like behavior? Continue to spread that "butter" with innocent monikers as if bread is what is stuck between the Swampy isles, and not American Lives? Watch our MSM fight to hide and censor horrible candidates on both sides, watching it devolve more and more as we elect perpetrators of sexual assaul
Re: (Score:2)
set up the Supreme Court in Salem again, and get plenty of firewood for the stakes
Fact check: the Supreme Court was never in Salem.
Fact check: no one was ever burnt at the stake in Salem.
Re: (Score:2)
set up the Supreme Court in Salem again, and get plenty of firewood for the stakes
Fact check: the Supreme Court was never in Salem.
I should have clarified that a "Supreme" Court existed there, along with a "Supreme" flavor of ignorance.
Fact check: no one was ever burnt at the stake in Salem.
Fucked check buried in semantics. Reality: No mother of a child taken from them gives a shit about the caliber of the bullet that took it.
Re: (Score:2)
So you claim the facts matter, then claim the facts don't matter. Which is it, really?
Re: (Score:2)
So you claim the facts matter, then claim the facts don't matter. Which is it, really?
Your "fact" checking is buried in bullshit semantics and you know it. Salem executed 20 humans (19 by hanging, one by crushing...happy now?) based on insane "trials" held in the 17th Century. Even the mayor of Salem supports this, and the logo emblazoned on every police car in that town is a picture of a witch riding a broom. They're not fucking pimping Halloween.
Slight inaccuracies with pointless details did nothing to dismiss my main point. I mean really, that is all you had to say about my entire s
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
SANDERS, to Biden: “You have been on the floor of the Senate time and time again talking about the need to cut Social Security, Medicare and veterans programs. Is that true or is that not true?”
BIDEN: “That is not true.”
THE FACTS: Sanders’ accusation is misleading. He suggests that Biden’s record shows that he would be hostile to preserving Social Security. In fact, Biden’s position has actually evolved over his long public career as a centrist senator. Cutting Social Security is not what he is proposing now.
What? The fact that needed checking was "You have been on the floor of the Senate time and time again talking about the need to cut Social Security, Medicare and veterans programs." The fact that the checked was "Biden’s position has actually evolved over his long public career as a centrist senator." So, they lay out their evidence for
Re: (Score:2)
The question is: Can we trust the fact checkers?
What this story is about is that the internet archive is NOT deleting content. That's why the content is still visible. They are putting a notice next to it that the reason the content was taken down from its original home was $REASON. So there's no reason for you to be complaining at all.
How do they KNOW why it was taken down? (Score:2)
If the entity who took it down posts a reason, they could simple link to a copy of that. But to make up their own reason is falsifying history.
You may think you know why something was taken down, but maybe it was just the easiest thing to do and not because the content was wrong.
If you look at AP News and Washington Post reporting of current subjects you will find lots of biased adjectives and slanted sensationalizing of what could have been facts. Facts with embellishment are not facts.
Re: (Score:2)
The narrative that "no one is trustworthy" is a reich-wing staple. It's also horribly, horribly wrong. The average person knows very little when compared to the vast array of potential knowledge. They depend on third parties to know things that they don't know, and perform fact checking. They literally cannot (and even if that were not the case, they do not) know about everything. They are going to have to trust someone to explain things to them that are beyond their comprehension.
This in fact is what makes
Re: Well.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Fact checkers by definition should be checking the facts and not just saying "true" or "false". They will have the evidence, and links to the evidence, so that the reader can make a more informed decision. You don't need to trust the fact checker actually, you can do the research and follow the links and see where they go (if they go to a source you trust or that is known to be impartial then that should help inform).
This is vastly better than just deciding whether Biden or Trump are more likely to speak
Re: Well.... (Score:1)
Re: Well.... (Score:2)
It is in fact what we have. If you look at the examples they are nothing like what you describe. But I have to hand it to you, you are living down to your nickname.
Re: Well.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can.. Just because the truth tends to have a slightly left of center bias does not mean it's false. If one politician lies more than another then it's not bias to point this out. If a politician who claims not to be a politician spends his waiking hours talking off the cuff without actual data or evidence to back him up, then it's not bias to try to look for the data and evidence and determine how trustworthy the statements were.
In recent presidential debates, BOTH candidates were called ou
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't have to trust the fact checkers.
You see a banner saying that the content of the article is disputed by someone who claims to have factual information about it. You can then check that information for yourself and make up your own mind.
That's why fact checking is such a powerful tool. It both prevents the site creating a bubble of misinformation and makes the reader exercise their own brain a bit by evaluating other sources of information.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
fact checking is such a powerful tool. It both prevents the site creating a bubble of misinformation and makes the reader exercise their own brain a bit by evaluating other sources of information.
"Fact checking" is a powerful propaganda tool. It prevents the average reader from exercising their own brain by suggesting to them that someone else has already done all the work of deciding what is "factual" and what is "misinformation."
Re: (Score:2)
But the average reader has already decided that "Trump is more truthy" or "Biden is more truthy", and are shutting off their brains from any opposing information, data, evidence, or even common sense. It's not propaganda to include a link to the official CDC statistics for example, the reader can decide whether they trust the CDC or not. If a politician says "there are 57 members of the communist party in the house!" then it would be nice to have someone dig up the facts in that matter rather than just re
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So many people share links from Babylon Bee and the Onion and think that they are true that it's scary. Just when you think humans can't get dumber some obviously satirical fake news starts trending with hundreds of outraged comments attached. You can't even mark such sites as "satire" because most people don't even understand that word, youd have to say "joke" or "humor".
Re: (Score:1)
Bret Weinstein said in his talk about the magic trick: “... there's something that is decidedly humorless about the social justice warrior culture, and I must say when I find people are humorless it doesn't necessarily tell me that they're bad but it does send up a warning flag”.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know who Lindsey Graham is, that's ok if you're not a US resident. If you are though, then you should know who the most senior and influencing members of the senate are because their actions affect you.
Yes, I think we can trust fact checkers - if you are smart. Don't read something from a fact checker and assume "this is true because it's on the internet!" That is stupid. A good fact checker includes references that you can check out yourself. Fact checkers also have track records, go to one that
Re: (Score:1)
Here are two examples of fact checking abuse, there are sure to be many more.
John Stossel being censored by facebook [twitter.com], for commentary on California's poor forest management. The supposed justification being a complete fabrication by Climate Feedback.
Michael Shellenberger being censored by facebook [spectator.com.au], part of the many efforts to suppress his new book Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All [amazon.com]. Again, by Climate Feedback.
Activists are masquerading as fact checkers, damaging people's reputations, a
Re: (Score:2)
Bugger (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to the Apple information that disappeared because Apple didn't want it lurking around making them look bad? Like their response to the B&W G3 data corruption problems, which was "spend more money"? When they put the TIL articles into the KB they deleted that one so that people couldn't reference it any more. Microsoft has at least kept their content around so you could still see it, all the way back to the DOS 5 stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a full time job to fact check Microsoft!
That is simply put WRONG (Score:2)
I can imagine the future textbooks: "In the first decade of the 2020, there were massive 'fake-news' attacks BUT we cannot prove that affirmation because pages were removed even from cache and backups... So we can only state that without any proof".
Re:That is simply put WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
we cannot prove that affirmation because pages were removed even from cache and backups... So we can only state that without any proof".
Who said they were removed? You clearly didn't actually read the post about it as the post shows examples of what they are doing. [archive.org]
Nothing is removed from the archive.
Re:That is simply put WRONG (Score:4, Insightful)
They aren't removing it, they are rewriting history by adding "context" to the pages where none was before.
They are adding "information" about the reason why something was removed from the internet. How you feel about it is up to you, but having more information is beneficial. They link to the fact checkers so you know precisely who decided it was false, and why, and you can make up your own mind. Isn't that what you wanted? Information?
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, even your analogy was wrong. Do you get paid to be this wrong about things? Do you honestly feel this threatened by someone adding a link to the top of a page? You certainly are a strange one, that's for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Today, in the year 2525, we call that era in the early twenty first century the dim ages. Not because of the darkening of the sun, but because of the stupidity of the people. Now remember, you must be 18 years or older or have a signed permissions slip from your parents to go on our field trip to the Trump Presidential Library.
Useless Opinions (Score:4, Informative)
The fact checkers are described as "well-established outlets", but not "neutral". So they've been around...around long enough for others to know which way they lean.
Re: (Score:2)
> but not "neutral"
Anyone describing themselves as neutral is a liar and not to be trusted.
The best anyone can do is try to be neutral and accept criticism as to why they have failed.
Perhaps relocate to another country? (Score:1)
Nothing removed, content added. (Score:5, Informative)
The summary doesn't make it explicit, so I will: there is nothing being removed from archive.org. What they are doing is adding a little yellow warning banner to some pages [archive.org] that link to fact checking sites. The purpose of these banners may help people understand why the content was deleted from the "live" internet in the first place.
I suspect this is the result of disinformation campaigns and qanon types from using archive.org to bypass takedowns that were intended to prevent the spread of disinformation.
Re:Nothing removed, content added. (Score:5, Informative)
A common tactic with fake news is to link to archive.org instead of the original site. That adds some credibility to it by making it look like archive.org is preserving it for some presumably important reason, and by implying that it has already been censored by People Who Don't Want You To Know The Truth.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think adding in a banner with a link to fact checkers is going to change anything since the conspiracy minded individuals don't trust
Re: (Score:2)
A common tactic with fake news is to link to archive.org instead of the original site. That adds some credibility to it by making it look like archive.org is preserving it for some presumably important reason, and by implying that it has already been censored by People Who Don't Want You To Know The Truth.
The intersection of people who fall for 'fake news' and understand what archive.org is must be quite small. You need to provide some evidence for your conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's not the real issue. The real issue is that NOBODY has the authority or legitimate role to "prevent the spread of disinformation". There is only the individual duty to share and consume information
Re: (Score:2)
The real issue is that NOBODY has the authority or legitimate role to "prevent the spread of disinformation". There is only the individual duty to share and consume information in order to determine and share the truth.
Nobody has the authority, but EVERYBODY has a legitimate role, and maybe a duty, in preventing the spread of disinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
there is nothing being removed from archive.org
Fine. Will they state which fact checking organization they used?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Re: (Score:2)
If you had even bothered to look at the image I linked then you wouldn't be asking.
slippery slope (Score:4, Interesting)
See? The pages are still there - we're just truthifying the pages to tell you they're BAD by the Ministry of Truth. The web pages are still there - 2020
See? This information is dangerous and we have to protect people from it. The pages are still there but you have to request permission to see them and the yellow banners stay, explaining why the pages were removed for your own safety. This is to strike a fair balance of maintaining the archive while stopping the spread of misinformation - 2025
Those pages never existed and any pages that are deemed to be spreading wrongthink have been removed automatically by the ministry of truth. We're here to protect you - 2030
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
we're just truthifying the pages to tell you they're BAD by the Ministry of Truth
I didn't know the Internet Archive was a government entity. You know, unlike the con artist and his cabal who tell you they're not lies, they're alternative facts. Without providing any evidence for the lies.
But do go on about how making sure people understand the facts of a situation is a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry to fact check your bullshit.
I KnOw ThEyRe LiEs BeCaUsE FaCtChEcK.OrG SaId So. YoUr LiNks ArE PrOpAgAnDa AnD LiEs AnD NeEd To Be AfFixEd WiTh A YeLlOw StAr tO ShOw ThEy'Re QuEsTiOnAbLe.
Like I said - it starts like Reddit did - just putting up a questionable banner. It starts like Twitter and Facebook and Google did by just adding a comment to the post with a link to the "correct side". Then the information got removed.
But that's ok - right? It's just PrIvAtE InFoRmAtIoN. Have to protect people fro
Re: (Score:2)
Today, a yellow star, er, banner.
Tomorrow, the bit bucket.
Nice to see (Score:2, Troll)
Winston Smith will always have a job.
Great Post (Score:1)
AP (Score:5, Insightful)
Recent AP tweet:
"Why does France incite anger in the Muslim world? Its brutal colonial past, staunch secular policies and tough-talking president who is seen as insensitive toward the Muslim faith all play a role."
Of course you'll have to read about that on other news sites because AP has hidden the evidence of their ideological bias by deleting the tweet after outcry.
That's not what a real news organization does - those ADD corrections or editors' notes. Like the Intercept should have when Greenwald went after the guy who coordinated the manhunt for Edward Snowden, instead of censoring him into quitting the paper he founded.
It used to be that the news told me what happened and I had to figure out how to feel. Now they tell me how to feel and I have to figure out what happened.
Re: AP (Score:1)
Mod parent up
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be that the news told me what happened and I had to figure out how to feel.
No, it wasn't. Articles were always written in leading ways which revealed bias, based on factors like word choice.
Now they tell me how to feel and I have to figure out what happened.
In your AP tweet example, you learn what [many] Muslims feel about France. I'm not seeing the problem here. If you want more information, it's only a web search away.
Re: (Score:3)
In your AP tweet example, you learn what [many] Muslims feel about France. I'm not seeing the problem here. If you want more information, it's only a web search away.
The twit at AP claims, without evidence, that France has:
A) a brutal colonial past
B) staunch secular policies
C) a tough-talking president
No where does it indicate how Muslims feel about France. It is a factual claim about France.
Re: AP (Score:2)
"The twit at AP claims, without evidence, that France has:
A) a brutal colonial past
B) staunch secular policies
C) a tough-talking president"
There is ample evidence for anyone paying attention that all those things are true. If you aren't paying attention, who is telling you to be outraged?
Fact checkers are just journalist (Score:2)
Joining the propaganda train (Score:2)
Once upon a time, there was a dead civilization.
It lived on as a mediocre shadow of itself. Most people wanted it to simply continue on that path, although it involved a great deal of further social decay. Others resisted, seeing no point in decaying further, and hoping to someday resurrect the dead civilization and give it new life.
All of the denialists -- those who wanted to continue dying -- united together to remove any mention of any alternative to continuing to die. They claimed that this was in defen
Normalizing censorship (Score:1)
Fact check = censorship. That's all you need to know.
A crime against humanity .. (Score:1)
A F-ing crime against humanity and the future - you slimy evil horrors!
It Just - Wrong but Just - to use pliers to rip your tongue out then drive the pliers through your eye to brain, and kill you vile evil horrors,.. .. “we've been erasing history and allowing our Witch family Minions of Satan to direct us in redefining it, under the pretense of 'fact checking'.”
Then all the older women in your families.
God Demands Love, not Death, so when trying to find something important they took down to h
History.. (Score:1)
The memory hole (Score:1)
Re:Packing the Archive. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's booking CSPAN these days you guys? Anybody knows??
Re: (Score:2)
No, you do. You can read both the original, preserved thanks to archive.org, and the counter-claims made by fact checkers.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you do. You can read both the original, preserved thanks to archive.org, and the counter-claims made by fact checkers.
Hmmm.
[Types "Bruce Jenner" into the wrong search engine, gets banned for life for deadnaming]
Yeah, that whole counter-claim thing ain't working out so well in a search-enabled world controlled by those with progressive policies.
Re: (Score:3)
And who gets to decide what the 'best' and 'worst' is? The self anointed Guardians of Truth Snopes, Politfact et al?
Hilarious you pointed to the two former golden standards of truth, and question who to believe. Sad there was a time when those organizations were considered valid sources. What happened? Did they stop? Integrity? Greed?
Or did we just get too fucking addicted to social media...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the truth appears to have a strong bias against whatever Trump says on Twitter at 2am, so the truth is clearly untrustworthy! Seriously, I think this is some of the problem, in that people do not want to hear that their heros are liars.
Snopes probably shouldn't have added a political section, because no one wants to know the truth about politics any more than they want to know what makes blue cheese blue. Now you have a faction who refuse to believe Snopes even when it says the earth is round.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the Earth is actually a slightly pear shaped oblique sphere, so anyone claiming the Earth is round are just as wrong as the flat Earth people.
It's the problem with facts, they have various amounts of truth. The Earth being round is close enough to the truth even if not actually true.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the truth appears to have a strong bias against whatever Trump says on Twitter at 2am, so the truth is clearly untrustworthy! Seriously, I think this is some of the problem, in that people do not want to hear that their heros are liars.
And the same can be said for the complete dismissal of any corrupt transgression behind Biden. Or any number of politicians that taxpayers have funded their sexual assault settlements.
And The People, never want to admit how stupid and gullible they are or were when voting for "heroes". I get that. Human nature reinforced by ignorance. Doesn't make them any more intelligent, because sensible humans admit when they're wrong. Even dead wrong. I'll debate anyone on anything, and will happily admit I'm wron
Re:Packing the Archive. (Score:5, Interesting)
While I can certainly understand preserving the digital fossil line of our internet history (Wayback is rather cool to check out sometime), but is there a reason we want to preserve the worst of it as well?
Evidence. When we finally come to prosecute the people running our social media for deliberately betraying their countries and selling them off to the highest bidders, they will claim that they just wanted to "bring people together". If we have the old versions of their systems their stalker histories will be clear.
Re: (Score:2)
The charges brought against people during the Spanish Inquisition were complete and utter bullshit.
Should we memory-hole them from history books?
Of course not - those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
More modern - if you hide the lies the not-sees levied against the Jews then few would recognize them when they resurface. Nothing could help the Neonotsees more.
Eternal Vigilance (despite the lameness filter's attempt to dissuade it).
Re: (Score:2)
While I can certainly understand preserving the digital fossil line of our internet history (Wayback is rather cool to check out sometime), but is there a reason we want to preserve the worst of it as well?
Holocaust denial has contributed to the resurgence of N@z!s. We could argue all day about whether they are real N@z!s, but they love Hitler and want to kill (or at least subjugate) "The Jews" who they are still blaming for all of society's problems. It's best we don't forget who the N@z!s were, and what they did. So yes, there are good reasons to preserve the worst.
Humans are self-deluding (Score:4, Insightful)
If we start editing the past based on what we think we know today, we will simply erase whatever disagrees with the pretenses and illusions of today that we are trying to preserve.
Re: (Score:2)
If we start editing the past based on what we think we know today, we will simply erase whatever disagrees with the pretenses and illusions of today that we are trying to preserve.
When we humans repeat the worst of our history all the fucking time, your point is again?
Guess I'm not looking forward to preserving Stupid of Idiotic Past, so we can guarantee Stupid of Idiotic Future.
You misunderstand history (Score:2)
The worst of it consists of our human tendency to error winning out; the rest shows people fighting that.
We need to remember how it happened and continue making ourselves better.