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: 2) by VLM on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:47PM
I kinda like this conversation because it demonstrates how the cultural escape velocity has been reached such that communication is quite challenging. The minority of the country that lost seem very confused about Trump.
Sure... um, I'll oppose Trump if you dump on Assange some more. What does that even...? I mean across political boundaries that strategy doesn't even make sense. Oh perhaps you think I dislike Assange, like Hillary who wanted to call in a drone strike on him. Naw I'm all good.
Or call the guy running on the anti-globalist anti-war platform a fascist some more. I heard that worked wonders for the D party in the heartland, every time Hillary called white people deplorable racists they were supposed to vote 1% more for her but to her complete surprise it seemed to go the other way. I mean, words don't even make sense across political boundaries anymore. She thought those were seductive words of endearment but the electorate said F you in response, huh.
fix what's been broken so badly.
Like, um... well, famously he was verbally disrespectful to the female groupies who sluttily threw themselves at him when he was a young single guy. Of course its hard to respect women who don't respect themselves, but that's not a total excuse for his behavior, takes two to tango and all that. Oh well I'd rather elect a leader than a saint. And, um... Yeah I guess that's all that's broken so far. You see anything broken out there?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:49PM
The minority of the country that lost seem very confused about Trump.
So far, Trump's 2.3 million votes behind Clinton. He's only President Elect because of the electoral college. The same thing happened in 2000, and had the popular vote mattered, why might not have been attacked the next year, and we certainly wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and certainly wouldn't have ended up with such a huge deficit; war is damned expensive.
OTOH, maybe it was the best that Clinton lost, even though I voted for her. I did a little history digging, looking up the President who historians say was our worst, James Buchanan, and his pre-President public service life was amazingly like Hillary's.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:41PM
I did a little history digging, looking up the President who historians say was our worst, James Buchanan, and his pre-President public service life was amazingly like Hillary's.
How dare you impute the good name of James Buchanan! I demand citations!
Actually, I was just curious of the resources you consulted when researching a semi-subjective topic like this.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:00PM
It's usually something covered in any sort of college level American history class, so specific citations aren't really part of how I came to understand this, but Buchanan was infamous for taking an (apparently) very pro-slavery position and nixing the reneging on the compromises between the North and the South in a way that sharpened divides and amplified animosity, then flatly ignored the backlash(like bleeding Kansas) hyperpolarizing the nation. In many ways historians think he was responsible for making the civil war inevitable, by making moderate abolitionists like Lincoln(who advocated for a buy-out of slaves until the war) the enemy of The South.
He then proceeded to ignore secession, when states pulled out due to not liking the results of an election(man, sound familiar?) making his refusal to address the reality of the country complete. He just ignored everything. In short, he was a legalist, obsessed with following the law, in a time when a pragmatist or a moralist would have served better.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday December 01 2016, @03:47PM
It started with something I read in The Atlantic, so I looked him up in Wikipedia and Britannica. I realize you can't use an encyclopedia for real research, I was simply curious.
Of course, Buchanan had no private email server...
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org