zlacker

>>XnoiVe+(OP)
Is it likely that the Executive Branch would try to exert control over it to remove "inconvenient" data?

>>MPSimm+O6
I've heard it has already happened. Specifically the internet archive removed vidoes of the TempleOS developer Terry Davis' live streams because of problematic content.

If the internet archive is already curated for content then yeah there is a 100% chance that there will be more curation of content.

>>chrisg+gh
Kiwifarms as well. They are a bit of a pushover when it comes to controversy.

>>jazzyj+Vn
I thought Archive just removed access, but kept the content. I know that from a user perspective that is a distinction without a difference, but for posterity it matters.

Does anyone have any facts/citations on if this is a myth/coping mechanism I created, or reality?

>>jprd+uw
“2023 The Internet Archive, a non-profit research library, makes use of internal processes and tools, including human review and hash-matching, as well as reports from external parties to identify, disable access to, and limit the reappearance of illegal and/or proscribed violent extremist material on archive.org”

https://help.archive.org/help/tco-transparency-reports/

>>cwillu+LA
I wonder how many gems like this https://archive.org/details/youtube-moXX8lbnmHs that could have been saved have been lost. (Obviously this one is saved, for now.)

This is not to disparage the tremendous work done and being done by the IA, it's more of me lamenting the trend of our society and societies to mentally babysit people lest their mind gets exposed to something bad, with the implicit assumption that adult humans can't be trusted to see some stupid bs and react with "that was some stupid bs. I am moving it into the stupid bs bucket of things I know about".