7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80

It wasn't always followed on Reddit, but downvoting there was supposed to be for comments that don't contribute to the conversation.

Here the guidance is looser -- the docs don't address comments, but do say to "upvote posts that you like."

I've tried contributing to some conversations and sometimes present a different viewpoint in the interest of thought exchange, but this often results in massive downvotes because people disagree. I'm not going to waste my energy contributing to a community that ends up burying my posts because we have different opinions.

That's true on Reddit to, so I'm kind of being tangential to the original question. I guess what I'm saying is that some people might feel like I do and won't engage in any community, be it Reddit or Lemmy, if it's just going to be an echo chamber.

I'm still using my Galaxy S8 with only one problem: Verizon's voicemail app won't run on something this old. Every other app is fine. It figures that the only app that encourages me to upgrade is from the phone company.

Inuyasha often said he was evil and played the tough guy so he would be left alone, but he was usually compassionate and had a soft side.

Technically, each time that it is viewed it is a republication from copyright perspective. It's a digital copy that is redistributed; the original copy that was made doesn't go away when someone views it. There's not just one copy that people pass around like a library book.

Again, isn't that the site's prerogative?

I think there should at least be a recognized way to opt-out that archive.org actually follows. For years they told people to put

User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow:

in robots.txt, but they still archived content from those sites. They refuse to publish what IP addresses they pull content down from, but that would be a trivial thing to do. They refuse to use a UserAgent that you can filter on.

If you want to be a library, be open and honest about it. There's no need to sneak around.

Like I said, I have no problems with individuals archiving it and not republishing it.

If I take a newspaper article and republish it on my site I guarantee you I will get a takedown notice. That will be especially true if I start linking to my copy as the canonical source from places like Wikipedia.

It's a fine line. Is archive.org a library (wasn't there a court case about this recently...) or are they republishing?

Either way, it doesn't matter for me any more. The pages are gone from the archive, and they won't archive any more.

Shouldn't that be the content creator's prerogative? What if the content had a significant error? What if they removed the page because of a request from someone living in the EU requested it under their laws? What if the page was edited because someone accidentally made their address and phone number public in a forum post?

how do you expect an archive to happen if they are not allowed to archive while it is still up.

I don't want them publishing their archive while it's up. If they archive but don't republish while the site exists then there's less damage.

I support the concept of archiving and screenshotting. I have my own linkwarden server set up and I use it all the time.

But I don't republish anything that I archive because that dilutes the value of the original creator.

Yes, some wikipedia editors are submitting the pages to archive.org and then linking to that instead of to the actual source.

So when you go to the Wikipedia page it takes you straight to archive.org -- that is their first stop.

It’s user-driven. Nothing would get archived in this case. And what if the content changes but the page remains up? What then? Fairly sure this is why Wikipedia uses archives.

That's a good point.

Pretty sure mainstream ad blockers won’t block a custom in-house banner. And if it has no tracking, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s on Archive or not, you’re getting paid the same, no?

Some of them do block those kinds of ads -- I've tried it out with a few. If it's at archive.org I lose the ability to report back to the sponsor that their ad was viewed 'n' times (unless, ironically, if I put a tracker in). It also means that if sponsorship changes, the main drivers of traffic like Wikipedia may not see that. It makes getting new sponsors more difficult because they want something timely for seasonal ads. Imagine sponsoring a page, but Wikipedia only links to the archived one. Your ad for gardening tools isn't reflected by one of the larger drivers of traffic until December, and nobody wants to buy gardening tools in December.

Yes, I could submit pages to archive.org as sponsorship changes if this model continues.

It was a much bigger deal when we used Google ads a decade ago, but we stopped in early 2018 because tracking was getting out of hand.

If I was submitting pages myself I'd be all for it because I could control when it happened. But there have times when I've edited a page and totally screwed it up, and archive.org just happened to grab it at that moment when the formatting was all weird or the wrong picture was loaded. I usually fix the page and forget about it until I see it on archive.org later.

I asked for pages like that to be removed, but archive.org was unresponsive until I used a DMCA takedown notice.

I don't think you know what SEO is. I think you know what bad SEO is.

Anyhow, Wikipedia is always free to link somewhere else if they can find better content.