SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Internet Archive Adds "Context" with Warnings
The Internet Archive is warning users about debunked 'zombie' coronavirus misinformation
The Internet Archive is alerting users when they've clicked on some stories that were debunked or taken down on the live web, following reports that people were spreading false coronavirus information through its Wayback Machine.
As NBC reporter Brandy Zadrozny noted on Twitter, the site includes a bright banner on one popular Medium post that was removed as misinformation. Its video archive also creates friction by making users log in to see some videos containing false information, like a reposted version of the conspiracy documentary Plandemic. These videos also include critical comments from Wayback Machine director Mark Graham who described the warnings to Zadrozny as an example of the "importance and value of context in archiving."
What Critical Thinking? Wayback Machine is Now Complicit in Big Tech Censorship
What critical thinking? Wayback Machine is now complicit in Big Tech censorship:
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
(Score: 2, Troll) by meustrus on Tuesday May 26 2020, @03:45PM (4 children)
I like to think the original plan for internet content assumed that the people browsing it were inconsequential nerds. If the info was wrong, they'd know, because nerds are smart. Even if they didn't, it wouldn't matter, because nobody listens to nerds anyway.
Everything changed when the normies came online. You can't assume people will use their critical thinking to say, huh, this is an archive, I wonder why the content was taken down in the first place? Worse, now everyone is online, so you can actually affect real life politics by manipulating enough idiots with it.
I'm not saying I like this development. I liked the old days when nobody expected anything on the internet to be "true" and I was free to peruse a combination of primary sources and wild hypotheses using my own critical thinking as an effective filter.
Unfortunately, this development is completely logical when we must coexist with idiots that vote. It would probably be better to take the Wayback Machine offline completely, maybe move it to some kind of university-paid-access model for internet historians, rather than start down the path of treating selectively annotating the historical record.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 4, Touché) by Kitsune008 on Tuesday May 26 2020, @04:38PM (1 child)
Independently verified from the current QOTD at the bottom of this page:
;-)
While I may agree with you philosophically, I would not agree with the policy you propose.
Who decides what to take offline? How are the decisions made? Can the process be changed, and why, and by who? How transparent is this process?
Who watches the watchers?
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday May 26 2020, @07:35PM
That's the point. Take everything offline. Then, give everything to organizations that pay for special access. No decisions to be made. No process to be changed.
Don't like the access policy? Can't afford a license? Then go build your own internet archive. The WayBack Machine suppresses competition in archival services by being free. If it weren't, we may even see competing archives, focused on different areas, serving different customer bases.
Then again, there are definitely flaws in my proposal, especially around who loses access. It is basically putting internet archives behind a paywall similar to the academic journal system, so it inherits all of those flaws.
But the motivation gets back to what you said: "Who watches the watchers?" If the unwashed masses really can't be trusted with the raw information, I think it would be better to take it all away from the people that probably don't need it, i.e. those being linked to old propaganda as if it were current credible news, than to water it down for the people that absolutely do, i.e. those studying the old propaganda with the expectation that it speaks to a historical reality.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 4, Touché) by progo on Tuesday May 26 2020, @06:54PM (1 child)
I like to think the original plan for printing press assumed that the people printing and reading from it were inconsequential monks. If the info was wrong, they'd know, because monks are smart. Even if they didn't, it wouldn't matter, because nobody listens to monks anyway.
Everything changed when the normies learned to read. You can't assume people will use their critical thinking to say, huh, this is just a machine; I wonder why some content is censored by law in the first place? Worse, now everyone is reading, so you can actually affect real life politics by manipulating enough idiots with it.
I'm not saying I like this development. I liked the old days when nobody could print and read on a massive scale anything someone thinks to be "true" and I was free to consult monks and judges as primary sources and use wild hypotheses using my own critical thinking as an effective filter.
Unfortunately, this development is completely logical when we must coexist with idiots that have been moving into cities. It would probably be better to take printing presses offline completely, or maybe move it to some Church-run model for arbiter of knowledge, rather than start down the path of stamping public books with the King's seal of approval.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday May 26 2020, @07:57PM
Hah, always an annoying means of responding.
The problem is that your metaphor doesn't work. The WayBack Machine is not the internet itself. It's an archive of the past.
It's more like a library than the printing press itself. Not just any library, though - a library which purports to hold copies of every version of every text that ever existed.
Such a thing would be enormously useful for historians. It would also be enormously dangerous for the existing power structure, which makes it enormously useful for Russian trolls to sow chaos. Maintaining checks on the existing power structure without degenerating into anarchy is a very hard problem. Annotating history like this is a poor solution.
Anyway, I'm not sure I understand how "the King's seal of approval" is a better system than "some Church-run model for arbiter of knowledge". Either system looks equally bad in the long term, with the "Church-run model" probably being better in the short term until the aristocracy are able to capture it to their advantage. You'll have to explain to me why I should prefer one form of censorship to another.
Besides, look at the incentives. I trust universities to want access to the best truth available, and I trust them to make that truth available to their students. Even if you're concerned about their political bias, they still need accurate information for their communication model to function correctly. Incidentally, the Vatican actually does have a secret library with some of the only copies still in existence of some highly blasphemous texts. They may not be willing to share, but their desire to know their enemy has saved entire competing religions for some future historians to analyze. Competing religions which were destroyed, in large part, by the actions of kings who disapproved.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?