SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-can-never-have-too-many-offsite-backups-eh dept.
The Internet Archive plans to create a backup of its data in Canada in response to the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States:
The Internet Archive, a nonprofit that saves copies of old web pages, is creating a backup of its database in Canada, in response to the election of Donald Trump. "On November 9th in America, we woke up to a new administration promising radical change," the organization wrote in a blogpost explaining the move. "It was a firm reminder that institutions like ours, built for the long-term, need to design for change."
[...] The move will cost millions, according to the Internet Archive, which is soliciting donations. In their post, the Internet Archive justified its decision to backup its data in Canada, claiming that Trump could threaten an open internet. "For us, it means keeping our cultural materials safe, private and perpetually accessible. It means preparing for a Web that may face greater restrictions."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:07PM
None, they're certainly saying that unchecked sharing of fake news is destroying our democracy, and it is. If people can't tell that an abc.com.co story about a protestor being paid is literally fake, and there's no indication on the primary news feed that many people use that that's happening, it's a real problem.
That being a real problem doesn't mean anyone in power for the party you've chosen to hate is saying it should be banned from existing. (Heaven help us if we point out that sites like breitbart also make up news stories, because then we're extra evil.)
Meanwhile this other party nominated then elected someone who seems to have an actual stated antipathy towards free press. Fuck your false equivalences a second time.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:59PM
That's why credibility and reputation and comportment are so important, because that divides "fake" news from "real" news in terms of how much sway you have with the public. And, honestly, the "real" news outlets completely shredded any of those three qualities they still clung to in the course of this election. They stopped substantiating their real claim to those three qualities a long time ago when they stopped doing real journalism because it's hard and expensive and nowhere near as sexy as spouting any kind of drivel and having the proles accept it as fact, based on the real journalism they used to do.
The way I see it, what is really destroying our democracy is the moral and intellectual torpor, the sheer laziness, of a society that has enshrined worthless, non-productive, non-value producing bankers, politicians, actors, and sports icons as its highest avatars of achievement. Nobody can be bothered to learn to spell, write, calculate, or reason any more because it has been established that you can just phone it in and win a trophy telling you how special you are.
"Free" is not what I read, but "biased." "Biased" press is the sticking point. And biased they surely are. The New York Times, the standard of American journalism, issued a mea culpa after the election saying they blew it. With that and similar admissions, how can anyone dispute the bald facts that the American media are of a piece, and biased to the core?
If the media ever were to want to be relevant again (frankly, I think that ship has sailed), they'd have to do something really, really, really hard that would involve a lot, a shit ton, a mega ton, of really, really, really hard work and do real investigative journalism again instead of plucking plums off the AP Wire, changing a couple words, and passing it off as their own.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:14PM
How do you get real investigate journalism, by your own admission being expensive, to be profitable, or at least breaking even from the investments?
That's the hard part. As worthwhile as investigate journalism *is* in our post-truth world, it currently has no value with the public, and they aren't willing to pay for it. Of which I suspect in many cases is because they can't afford it. When many are sick, tired, burned out, underpaid, overworked, etc. it's hard to get them to do anything, even when it clearly benefits them. I've been doing community outreach for a few years now and that is exactly what I get a lot from people I'm attempting to organize. "I'd love to help, but I have 3 jobs and two kids", and then I'm still arranging for them to be helped, because they very much need it. Extra food donated from local businesses, and stuff like that. I meet very few people in a strong enough position to help others and are also willing to work to make things better for everyone, or at least a few others in their community.
Do I wish people were willing and able to pay $15-$30 a month for investigative journalism like they do Netflix? Hell yes, but I don't know how to get there. Other than general strikes for living wages, of course. Then also factor in skyrocketing costs of living. Don't even dream of doing this in San Fransisco since it costs over 100% of average income to afford rent, with most people I see living with roommates or letting out rooms to make up the difference. Over 40% increase in the last 5 years cuts the legs off large portions of the community otherwise willing to engage with you.
We need a revolution at so many different levels in this country, and investigate journalism is one of them. Of which I admittedly have no idea how to start. I lament it as well.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:49AM
Bless you for doing it, ed. I burned my early- to middle 30's doing that.
It used to be that "doing your homework" was part of that job. Hell, "doing your homework" used to be part of many jobs. But an illness began in the top echelons of the society where people believed it was their right to have their cake and eat it, too. Bankers could get paid top dollar to manage vast sums of money, but pay no price when they fucked up or broke the law. CEOs could get paid top dollar for plunging their companies into ruin and throwing all the good people working hard in them out onto the streets. And so on and so on until the average Joe on the street wants to have store shelves full of cheap widgets made with slave labor in China, but still wants high-paying jobs in America making shelves full of widgets. But why shouldn't they have that pittance when they don't see anyone on Wall Street or in DC being held accountable? Sure, it means that the whole society from top-to-bottom stops working entirely, but why should they sacrifice when Wall Street and DC never have, and in fact have previously gorged themselves every time patriotic Americans gave the "full measure of devotion" for the country?
When your family has a monthly budget of, say, $20 for entertainment, do you spend it for the services of people employed by the people who are lying to you all the time, manipulating you all the time, or do you spend it on a little escapism via Netflix or basic cable?
It is hard. It is also ineluctable. We must undertake it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:36PM
> The New York Times, the standard of American journalism, issued a mea culpa after the election saying they blew it.
That's something you'll never see from a site like breitbart, or even fox. Fox doesn't even have an ombudsman.
The fact that they are publicly willing to own their mistakes is why they deserve trust. Perfection is impossible, a level-headed approach to imperfection is necessary both for publishers and readers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:07AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-the-wake-of-corey-lewandowski-arrest-breitbart-editor-admits-he-was-wrong/ [cbsnews.com]
Oh, and
https://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/three-years-late-nyt-admits-andrew-breitbart-was-right/ [wordpress.com]
I suppose after you've exhausted every other remote possibility, it's okay to admit even Breitbart can be correct once in a while. Three years later.
Do you enjoy smelling your own farts?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @01:09AM
A tweet is not an editorial holding themselves to account on breitbart.com
Furthermore, breitbart's throwing of their own reporter under the trump bus wasn't an article either, it was a reality-tv quality HR fuckup.
Nor is some random hyperpartisan blogger's skewed characterization of a NYT article an accurate description of reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:03AM
Way to move the goalpost, you dolt. The statement was "The fact that they are publicly willing to own their mistakes", which I do believe a tweet qualifies.
Throwing the reporter under the bus, or holding them to account when evidence clearly contradicted what they were reporting? Not only that, but stand-by the decision even when loosing one of their most recognizable contributors. And if they would have stood by the reporter, it would have just been proof of bias. Essentially, they can never hit those vaunted hills of "trust" since they aren't shoveling your brand of it. Gotcha.
The "hyperpartisan blogger" quotes the NYT article in full with just an opening paragraph to set context. I note the New York Times omitting completely Breitbart accusation.
But here's another "hyperpartisan blogger" reaching the same conclusion
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/how-did-progressive-journalists-get-pigford-so-wrong/275593/ [theatlantic.com]
but with a nice dose of smear so fart sniffers, such as yourself, can maintain their smug.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @02:59AM
Subscribe to your local newspaper, if you still have one. We are fairly fortunate, our long standing paper is now owned by Buffet and he appears to mostly leave them alone. While they don't have the news staff that they used to, they still have reporters that go dig for stories and expose real problems.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:22PM
None, they're certainly saying that unchecked sharing of fake news is destroying our democracy, and it is.
We don't even have a democracy to begin with. We have a system that suppresses third parties and makes many people believe they have to vote for the 'lesser evil'. Where is the democracy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:30PM
::rolleyes::
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:15AM
Chip on your shoulder much? The NDP were the official opposition party from 2011 until last year's elections.