zlacker

that's not how an archive should work. but perhaps Internet Archive is not an archive and it doesn't want to be one.

>>kome+(OP)
So if they scrape a kiddie porn site, they should keep that publicly available in perpetuity? That's not how the world works.

>>kome+(OP)
Its not the first time. Before than it was censoring content content that Scientology disliked. There was also the case of Snopes not being archived until a year ago, even after it got more involved in declaring more serious topics, rather than just internet urban legends.

There are people within the internet archive whose politics is so strong that I have said in private since 2016 that I have concerns they are a risk to the neutrality of the project. I am not going to mention their name to avoid a flamewar but that name will be mentioned more by others if they decide to remove more content.

>>kome+(OP)
They also honor DCMA requests and robots.txt. That's the way an archive works in the real world.

>>klyrs+C
This comparison summons the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

>>jbuhbj+N1
Not really. It's a clear demonstration that archives do not retain everything always. Whatever you read into it beyond that is on you.

>>krapp+31
revoking the public access to dome material is kosher, but removing the material itself is not.

>>klyrs+C
More apt comparison, should we erase Meinkampf or Das Kapital or any books that inspire violences (for example, the holy books) from existence?

>>klyrs+C
Viewing child porn is illegal, viewing anything on KiwiFarms isn't, in most places, including the US where the "Internet Archive" is.

>>ardfar+Pu1
That isn't apt, because removing Kiwi Farms from the Internet Archive doesn't remove it from existence.

Apt would be, should publishers have the right not to publish material like Mein Kampf, if they so choose, or does "free speech" now mean that all publishers must be forced to publish everything, however objectionable, if legal?

>>krapp+8w1
> That isn't apt, because removing Kiwi Farms from the Internet Archive doesn't remove it from existence.

The remove part was done already. They are not on the internet anymore. It was removed from Internet Archive because it contains some inconvenient information about DIY HRT to minors and other accusations.

>>kome+C4
Which is probably what happened. IA doesn't remove content. They only hide it.

>>colejo+tG1
first: we don't know

second: if it's true they have to notify it; and explain how researchers can access to this material.