zlacker

The operator of archive.is is circumventing copyright law in close to every country on earth, including all the democratic ones. Its unique selling point is that they do not comply with site owners' requests not to archive content or to delete content archived in the past.

While that doesn't exclude them from the protection of law, my conviction is slightly weaker when it comes to arbitrary standards of behaviour people on reddit invented. How many pages to they happily serve that contain private information long deleted from the actual websites? When they mutter under their breath, "information wants to be free" (as they are want to be, at least how I imagine it), does their definition of information include their identity?

(I'm slightly irritated by the "research" in that post, though... I really don't need Wikipedia to believe that -vich is a jewish name. And jewish names of Ukrainian/Russian origin are certainly not specific to that location today. I bet there are more people with that last name in Florida than in all of Eastern Europe combined)

>>KarlKe+(OP)
Archiving the Internet is not stealing the history books. It’s writing them.

>>random+z
I don't think we need metaphors to grasp what it is. Its importance is so obvious, even the people that wrote copyright law created an exemption for.

That exemption includes an opt-out provision. And while I could see how ignoring such requests could be in the public interest in some cases, ignoring them wholesale is fundamentally incompatible with any view of morality that condemns "doxing".

>>KarlKe+B5
I condemn doxing in principle. But if it’s out there once, it’s out there. To try to stuff the genie back only harms those who lack the information, regardless of intent.

I understand you don’t care for metaphors but I can’t help wondering who you mean by “we”? Perhaps “we” are not the intended audience. Please let “we” know “we” are free to ignore.