zlacker

[parent] [thread] 38 comments
1. helle2+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-04 22:14:04
why in the world is this being sunset i wonder
replies(5): >>themaf+x >>mavhc+d1 >>sixdim+m5 >>hn_acc+iq >>hulitu+431
2. themaf+x[view] [source] 2026-02-04 22:17:02
>>helle2+(OP)
The internet now exists and easily surpasses the value of this static publication.
replies(4): >>varun_+h1 >>MattGa+Q3 >>tomber+x6 >>thauma+J6
3. mavhc+d1[view] [source] 2026-02-04 22:20:28
>>helle2+(OP)
Facts are not a thing the government is interested in now
replies(2): >>rbanff+p5 >>mr_toa+QB
◧◩
4. varun_+h1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 22:20:40
>>themaf+x
The World Factbook was a really useful resource on the internet.
◧◩
5. MattGa+Q3[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 22:33:51
>>themaf+x
This is an odd thing to say for something heavily used on the internet. It was not just a physical book.
replies(1): >>themaf+G5
6. sixdim+m5[view] [source] 2026-02-04 22:42:36
>>helle2+(OP)
I concur.

Also, it was paid for by US taxpayer dollars - the entire content should have been released somewhere for free, maybe even someone would have started up a new project to maintain it, for example, something under Wikimedia or some other nonprofit.

This wholesale elimination of valuable information and data owned by the public is so incredibly sad and damaging to our future.

Maybe we need a FOIA request to get the entire contents released to the public.

replies(3): >>rbanff+46 >>oxfeed+E7 >>shevy-+v9
◧◩
7. rbanff+p5[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 22:42:38
>>mavhc+d1
Nor is soft power.

The factbook was much more a tool for propaganda than anything else. While you could trust most of the numbers, you shouldn’t expect it to be fair about any socialist or communist countries, usually classified as brutal dictatorships, while it would always be exceedingly kind to countries with US sponsored dictators.

replies(4): >>pxc+59 >>shevy-+D9 >>eldavi+L9 >>nl+lh
◧◩◪
8. themaf+G5[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 22:44:41
>>MattGa+Q3
> It was not just a physical book.

It was. You were able to access a copy on the internet. It was neither edited nor published there. As such it simply couldn't compete with resources that are.

replies(2): >>simonw+q9 >>psykli+y9
◧◩
9. rbanff+46[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 22:46:36
>>sixdim+m5
> Maybe we need a FOIA request to get the entire contents released to the public.

That’s a sound idea.

replies(2): >>toomuc+di >>simonw+dt
◧◩
10. tomber+x6[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 22:49:12
>>themaf+x
Has it though? Isn't one of the concerns of information on the internet (regardless of political affiliation) that a lot of it is total bullshit?

I've seen so many responses from AI and AI "Summaries" that source claims from 20 year old unsourced forum posts. For that matter, people just make shit up, all the time, often for no apparent reason. It's upsetting that it took me until my 30's to realize that, but regardless I think there is value in canonical, well-funded sources, even with the internet.

replies(1): >>cyberg+H7
◧◩
11. thauma+J6[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 22:50:50
>>themaf+x
The existence of secondary sources doesn't reduce the need for primary sources. Before something can be published everywhere, it has to be published somewhere.
replies(3): >>throwa+ta >>themaf+oc >>arrows+Nr
◧◩
12. oxfeed+E7[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 22:55:48
>>sixdim+m5
It seems to be archived on the wayback machine, for example https://web.archive.org/web/20260203163430/https://www.cia.g...

It was available for online browsing or as a downloadable file, I think a zip compressed PDF. I’m sure copies are available, but it would be nice to have an authoritative source.

replies(1): >>simonw+at
◧◩◪
13. cyberg+H7[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 22:56:38
>>tomber+x6
I think the quality of internet content depends on where you lurk and contribute.
replies(1): >>mmooss+9k
◧◩◪
14. pxc+59[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 23:03:55
>>rbanff+p5
Yep. This seems somewhat similar in motivation to the cuts to USAID.
◧◩◪◨
15. simonw+q9[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 23:05:17
>>themaf+G5
Incorrect. The website was updated weekly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Factbook#Frequency_o...
◧◩
16. shevy-+v9[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 23:05:35
>>sixdim+m5
Agreed. Though perhaps they will open source some stuff. What would interest me is HOW they got the information they showed.
replies(2): >>anigbr+Di >>simonw+ft
◧◩◪◨
17. psykli+y9[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 23:05:45
>>themaf+G5
What is this then: https://web.archive.org/web/20260203163430/https://www.cia.g...

It clearly states on the page that the Factbook was continuously updated, with "new data uploaded this week".

◧◩◪
18. shevy-+D9[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 23:06:29
>>rbanff+p5
While that is true, the current government makes heavy use of propaganda too.
replies(1): >>rbanff+Sf
◧◩◪
19. eldavi+L9[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 23:07:26
>>rbanff+p5
I'd be interested to see concrete examples of this, if they exist.
replies(2): >>throwa+na >>verdve+6d
◧◩◪◨
20. throwa+na[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 23:11:03
>>eldavi+L9
I would also like to see a comparison to prove the point.
◧◩◪
21. throwa+ta[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 23:11:33
>>thauma+J6
Not if everything is made up on the spot for clicks and views, which is where we're heading.
◧◩◪
22. themaf+oc[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 23:22:30
>>thauma+J6
The CIA was a secondary source. This bulk of this material is all drawn from other publications. Which you can now access in ways you could not before.
replies(1): >>anigbr+gf
◧◩◪◨
23. verdve+6d[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 23:26:35
>>eldavi+L9
by "this"... that the current US govt isn't interested in soft power?
replies(1): >>pseuda+NP
◧◩◪◨
24. anigbr+gf[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 23:40:42
>>themaf+oc
We get it, you can't see any utility in having this information aggregated anywhere in a consistent format.
◧◩◪◨
25. rbanff+Sf[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 23:45:08
>>shevy-+D9
True, but they have abandoned the subtlety of the factbook.
◧◩◪
26. nl+lh[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 23:56:24
>>rbanff+p5
> you shouldn’t expect it to be fair about any socialist or communist countries, usually classified as brutal dictatorships,

The World Fact Book doesn't have this kind of commentary. For example read the entry on North Korea. I've excerpted the most critical parts here, and I think they are a long way from your characterization:

> After the end of Soviet aid in 1991, North Korea faced serious economic setbacks that exacerbated decades of economic mismanagement and resource misallocation.

> New economic development plans in the 2010s failed to meet government-mandated goals for key industrial sectors, food production, or overall economic performance. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, North Korea instituted a nationwide lockdown that severely restricted its economy and international engagement.

> As of 2024, despite slowly renewing cross-border trade with China, North Korea remained one of the world's most isolated countries and one of Asia's poorest

https://web.archive.org/web/20260103000011/https://www.cia.g...

◧◩◪
27. toomuc+di[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 00:00:42
>>rbanff+46
https://www.muckrock.com/
◧◩◪
28. anigbr+Di[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 00:03:25
>>shevy-+v9
Every country puts out an official gazette with abundant regulatory and statistical information. Of course you'd be foolish to rely on all these at face value, but it's an excellent starting point for assessing the economic activity of any given country. You can then synthesize it with things like market data and publicly available shipping information. Plus the CIA has (at least I hope it still has) a large staff of people whose only job is to study print, broadcast, and electronic media about other countries and compile that into regular reports of What Goes On There.

Obviously there's all sorts of covert information gathering that also goes on, but presumably the product of that is classified by default. Fortunately our executive branch is headed by intellectual types who enjoy reading and synthesizing a wealth of complex detail /s

◧◩◪◨
29. mmooss+9k[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 00:13:26
>>cyberg+H7
in what social venue do you find high-quality content? I don't know of any that come close to matching serious publications, IME.
30. hn_acc+iq[view] [source] 2026-02-05 00:58:36
>>helle2+(OP)
To avoid pesky facts getting in the way of them attempting to re-write history, like in 1984 (the book).
◧◩◪
31. arrows+Nr[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:13:32
>>thauma+J6
The CIA World Factbook is a tertiary source.
replies(1): >>hulitu+U31
◧◩◪
32. simonw+at[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:25:41
>>oxfeed+E7
As far as I can tell the single zip downloadable versions stopped being published after 2020. I grabbed a copy of the 2020 zip from the Internet Archive and turned it into a GitHub repo here: https://github.com/simonw/cia-world-factbook-2020/
replies(1): >>EarlKi+8x
◧◩◪
33. simonw+dt[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:26:00
>>rbanff+46
If enough people FOIA them maybe they'll decide it's cheaper to just put the archived website back up!
◧◩◪
34. simonw+ft[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:26:23
>>shevy-+v9
It was all released into the public domain already. If you can obtain a copy it's yours to do what you like with.
◧◩◪◨
35. EarlKi+8x[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:57:23
>>simonw+at
Just in case anyone else wants to poke around and discovers there appears to be archived versions after 2020[1]... don't bother. They all 404. At a guess: There were links to them in anticipation of creating updated zip files but they never got around to it. Lame.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.cia.gov/the-world-...

◧◩
36. mr_toa+QB[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 02:38:16
>>mavhc+d1
> Facts are not a thing the government is interested in now

They’re not too keen on the world either. Or books.

◧◩◪◨⬒
37. pseuda+NP[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 04:52:44
>>verdve+6d
They wanted examples of propaganda in the World Factbook probably.
38. hulitu+431[view] [source] 2026-02-05 07:07:25
>>helle2+(OP)
Social media is much more suited to spread propaganda.
◧◩◪◨
39. hulitu+U31[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 07:16:06
>>arrows+Nr
But treated by Wikipedia as _the_ primary source. /s
[go to top]