Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @01:54PM   Printer-friendly
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."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:09PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:09PM (#435032) Journal

    You know how I said "arguable either way?" That wasn't a "I refuse to acknowledge anti-war libertarians exist." That was a "You're being highly selective to create a worldview where you're always right." You seem intent on misunderstanding me.

    So... I'll let you go. You defeated what imaginary me said. Good job, kid. That man, and his straw is all nicely scattered ripped to shreds.

    The argument I never made, laid to rest with surgical precision. The careful word choice to exclude exactly what you want excluded, safely ignored. Your victory is well earned.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:37PM (#435045)

    Uh-huh. More backpedaling.

    Debating an issue isn't exactly condoning, and is pretty far removed from "arguable either way" considering only ONE of the articles you cite actually made the case for war with Iraq specifically (and was in fact part of a debate that also argued against going to war).

    Here's selections from the Libertarian platform in 2002 in case you were unclear:

    American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

    The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.

    We recognize that foreign governments might violate the rights of Americans traveling, living, or owning property abroad, just as those governments violate the rights of their own citizens. We condemn all such violations, whether the victims are U.S. citizens or not.

    Any effort, however, to extend the protection of the United States government to U.S. citizens when they or their property fall within the jurisdiction of a foreign government involves potential military intervention. We therefore call upon the United States government to adhere rigidly to the principle that all U.S. citizens travel, live, and own property abroad at their own risk. In particular, we oppose -- as unjust tax-supported subsidy -- any protection of the foreign investments of U.S. citizens or businesses.

    We support withdrawal of the United States government from, and an end to its financial support for, the United Nations. Specifically, we oppose any U.S. policy designating the United Nations as policeman of the world, committing U.S. troops to wars at the discretion of the U.N., or placing U.S. troops under U.N. command. We oppose U.S. government participation in any world or international government. We oppose any treaty under which individual rights would be violated.

    We call for the reform of the Presidential War Powers Act to end the President's power to initiate military action, and for the abrogation of all Presidential declarations of "states of emergency." There must be no further secret commitments and unilateral acts of military intervention by the Executive Branch.

    We favor a Constitutional amendment limiting the presidential role as Commander-in-Chief to its original meaning, namely that of the head of the armed forces in wartime. The Commander-in-Chief role, correctly understood, confers no additional authority on the President.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:52PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:52PM (#435054) Journal

      No, you won. You utterly got me on all those things I specifically set out not to say, and intentionally chose words to indicate I was not saying.

      Yep. You're not a fuckwad trying to "win" a dispute that didn't really exist except in your mind. I'm totally "backpeddling" by pointing out what I actually said and meant.

      Congratulations hero. You won! Because that's clearly what matters here! Beating someone in an argument, not having a meaningful point to make.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:28AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:28AM (#435368)

        He's almost right about the spelling of "back-pedaling"!