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 AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:00PM
I don't want to debate Trump's positions or whatever in detail, but I'd just note something here:
Free Speech/1st amendment is a bigger deal to most people/organizations than torturing of terrorism prisoners in foreign black sites. Many that would look away for the latter would be up in arms for the former.
Free speech has been curtailed many times in U.S. history. We had the Alien and Sedition Acts [wikipedia.org] within a decade of the adoption of the Constitution. Lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus [wikipedia.org] during the Civil War and threw protesters, journalists, legislators, and even judges in military prison -- for indefinite periods -- who disagreed with the war effort. Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1918 [wikipedia.org] with intent to jail war protesters and those who criticized the government; there was little public opposition to this. The Smith Act [wikipedia.org] was used to prosecute declared Communists, Socialists, union members, racist organizations, etc. -- and many prosecutions under the act were widely supported by the U.S. public. In more recent decades we have seen measures like expansion of Free speech zones [wikipedia.org] to limit where free speech and protest is allowed.
I could go on, since this just lists some of the most well-known and wide-ranging cases in U.S. history of suppression of free speech. Just yesterday we had the President-elect calling for jailing and revoking citizenship for flag burners. (And yeah, I'm well aware that Clinton too co-sponsored a bill that would have tried to jail them too a decade ago; I don't agree with her either.)
It's nice and all to say that people would be "up in arms" when restrictions on free speech are created, but historical precedent shows otherwise. When people are SCARED or believe there is a THREAT, the public is mostly happy to support restrictions on speech.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:44PM
Apt examples, Athanasius. Depressing in their veracity, but apt.
It's why America is a process and not a destination, and nobody gets to call the game when the score moves in his direction.
In the wake of the election poor dears on DailyKos and HuffingtonPost were raising their fists, proclaiming it's now time to "fucking fight." They should have been fighting all along, no matter who was in DC, because every single one of those fuckers works 24/7 to fuck over the American people no matter what the party label next to their name says. Instead, they laid down and said nothing while Obama and his cronies continued the same abuses that Bush and his cronies continued from Clinton and his cronies...
Washington DC delenda est.