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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:21PM
The general fact that he's made multiple public comments suggesting using the powers of his office(including ones that don't exist like federal libel laws) to target free speech and free press?
Please cite them. Primary sources only if you don't mind.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:41PM
Uh, no. Primary sources are for journalists, historians, and other direct researchers.. If you reject secondary sources that report what people have said and done, you're too far gone to reason with. Sorry that's my line for unacceptable standards of evidence in casual debate. I can accept that you might reject tertiary sources, or reject individual secondary sources as making things up too often(Brietbart news comes to mind).
Here, let's start with tone of anti-press sentiments:
"I do hate [reporters] And some of them are such lying, disgusting people. It’s true" [businessinsider.com.au]
"Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post.” [theguardian.com]
Less than cleverly veiled threats:
Trump saying that when we becomes president, The New York Times and Washington Post are going to "have problems" [businessinsider.com.au]
and to repeat a quote from before [nationalreview.com]
Now, you should not just now be finding out these incredibly basic facts. It's something of a cliche on the internet to tell people to do their own research when losing an internet argument, but you really ought to have a baseline understanding of a presidential candiate's views on free speech before an election. So fuck you for demanding "citations" of an obvious fact. Fuck you for not even beginning to read about the world you live in. And fuck you for acting so high and mighty about your own damn ignorance. It's really not excusable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:34PM
Uh, no. Primary sources are for journalists, historians, and other direct researchers.. If you reject secondary sources that report what people have said and done, you're too far gone to reason with.
So if I want to do the thinking myself instead of what other people tell me, I'm being against reason? Right.
Sorry that's my line for unacceptable standards of evidence in casual debate. I can accept that you might reject tertiary sources, or reject individual secondary sources as making things up too often(Brietbart news comes to mind).
If you cannot present sufficient evidence so that even the most superficial skepticism is dispelled, then your argument is weak. The fact that this is a "casual debate" only means that you are presenting a weak argument in a casual debate. Now, you don't have to necessarily prove your claims if you don't want to, but I'm going to call them out for what they are - opinions being falsely presented as facts.
You've provided a number of links to sources that are just as ideologically driven and willing to push their agenda as Breitbart after I explicitly asked for primary sources. I wonder why that is? Could it be perhaps that you have no evidence and are instead relying on biased sources engaging in overloading the reader with superficial and inconclusive circumstantial evidence because you don't actually have any strong evidence to support your position?
Now, you should not just now be finding out these incredibly basic facts. It's something of a cliche on the internet to tell people to do their own research when losing an internet argument
I'm not losing any argument because I am yet to make any points. It's impossible to form a rebuttal when the other side simply makes an unsubstantiated assertion and then gets upset at you when you ask for evidence.
...but you really ought to have a baseline understanding of a presidential candiate's views on free speech before an election.
I don't have to have any understanding of US presidential elections because I'm not eligible to vote in the US or even a resident, and therefore have no moral obligation to be informed about it. I'm just a guy on the Internet who despises bullshit no matter who pushes it. Not that attacking my character has any relevance to the discussion.
So fuck you for demanding "citations" of an obvious fact. Fuck you for not even beginning to read about the world you live in. And fuck you for acting so high and mighty about your own damn ignorance. It's really not excusable.
That is rather unwarranted. Why so angry when all I did was to politely ask for strong evidence?
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:36PM
I'd like to reaffirm that yes it's kinda shitty of you to politely ask for citations for bare minimum facts that you ought to know, and assuring me that you only had the best of intentions doesn't really help me feel better.
I can sorta understand the whole "not in the US" part, but then why do care that much if it's true now?