There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

peanuts4life ,
@peanuts4life@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Why is everyone so mad about this? I mean, it’s a salty article, but yeah, it kinda sucks when publications don’t give notice before closing down. I think providing the public, including previous contributors, time to archive content is a good practice.

kevindqc ,

It’s a good practice, sure. But as per the headline, the author wants to make it a law. That’s why people are not having it.

IsThisAnAI ,

Good Lord what a dumb idea.

Edit: I like an idiot couldn’t help myself and actually read some of this.

Is this an 11 year old?

teft ,
@teft@lemmy.world avatar

We can’t get companies to clean up toxic waste sites that they create yet people think they can get companies to backup a website?

jungle ,

Stopped reading after the first paragraph.

kevindqc ,

Yep.

“a clown show of a company”

Wow, I’m sure this will be a good and unbiased article! /s

sugartits ,

What? No. What utter nonsense.

I should be able to remove a website that I created and paid for without there being some silly law that I have to archive it.

As the owner, it’s up to me if I want it up or not. After all, I’m paying for the bloody thing.

muntedcrocodile ,
@muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee avatar

That being said, if a third party, like the Internet Archive, wants to archive it they should have every right.

Metz ,

I’m not sure if i can agree with that. A third party cannot simply override the rights of the owner. If i want my website gone, i want it gone from everywhere. no exception.

That kinda also goes in the whole “Right to be forgotten” direction. I have absolute sovereignty over my data. This includes websites created by me.

muntedcrocodile ,
@muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee avatar

Yes they can, otherwise Disney can decide that that DVD you bought 10 years ago, you’re no longer allowed to have and you must destroy it.

Right to be forgotten is bullshit, not from an ideological standpoint right, but purely from a practicality stand point the old rule of once its on the internet its on the internet forever stands true. That’s not even getting started on the fact that right to be forgotten is about your personal information, not any material you may publish that is outside of that.

atrielienz ,

Disney can decide to terminate that license but the disc is another story. The license is for the media on the disc but the physical disc itself is owned by the person who bought it. This is literally why a company can remove a show or movie or song from your digital library. The license holder can always revoke the license. It was harder to enforce with physical media (and cost prohibitive in a lot of cases), but still possible.

muntedcrocodile ,
@muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee avatar

No, they can’t Google first sale doctrine.

They can remove shit from your digital library because in page 76 of the terms and conditions that you didn’t read, they redefined the word purchase to mean temporarily rent.

Metz ,

You compare entirely different things here. I’m talking about a website i own not a product i sell. And no, this “on the internet forever” is complete and utter nonsense that was never true to begin with. the amount of stuff lost to time easely dwarfs the one still around.

grue ,

Information doesn’t have “owners.” It only has – at most – “copyright holders,” who are being allowed to temporarily borrow control of it from the Public Domain.

Telorand ,

Imagine that absolute historical clusterfuck if terrible politicians and bad actors could just delete entire portions of their history.

funtrek ,

Maybe for sites from corporations or similar sources. But people should have always have the right to be forgotten. And in fact in some countries they do have this right.

muntedcrocodile ,
@muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee avatar

Want to be forgotten is about personally identifiable information. Other work, which is covered under copyright, which means if someone has legally obtained a copy of it, as long as they’re not distributing it, is their right to do whatever the fuck they want with it. Even hold it until the copyright expires at which point they can publish it as much as they want.

GBU_28 , (edited )

This is just like AI scraping

Edit if you allow a third party to “archive” your content, the ship has sailed. I’m not advocating for or against anything but once your stuff is scraped (by anyone) it’s gone.

Randomgal ,

Yes except AI companies are making mad cheddar.

muntedcrocodile ,
@muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee avatar

Not really. If the archive decides to publish your work, that’s copyright infringement. If an AI company decides to scrape your content and develop an AI with your content, I would argue that that’s a derivative work, which is also protected by copyright.

GBU_28 ,

I’m not discussing what they do with it, I’m discussing the raw act of ingesting your page.

Cats and bags

To venture into opinion, I think there shouldn’t be “every right” to archive your page, for any purposes such as archive or ai or whatever.

evatronic ,

A “Library of Congress” for published web content maybe. Some sort of standard that allows / requires websites that publish content on oublic-facing sites to also share a permanent copy with an archive, without having the archive have to scrape it.

Sort of like how book publishers send a copy to the LoC.

muntedcrocodile ,
@muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee avatar

I don’t think requiring is a great idea, but definitely making the standard that you can do if you want would be very cool.

voracitude , (edited )

Ehh, I halfway agree, but there is value in keeping historical stuff around. Heritage laws exist in a good number of countries so that all the cultural architecture doesn’t get erased by developers looking to turn a quick buck or rich people who think that 500 year old castle could really use an infinity pool hot tub; there are strict requirements for a building to be heritage-listed but once they are, the owner is required by law to maintain it to historical standards.

I only halfway disagree because you’re right, forcing people to pay for something has never sat right with me generally. As long as the laws don’t bite people like you and me, e.g. there are relatively high requirements for something to be considered “culturally relevant” enough to preserve, I’d be okay with some kind of heritage system for preserving the internet.

grue ,

Heritage laws exist in a good number of countries so that all the cultural architecture doesn’t get erased

Copyright law itself is supposed to be such a law (at least in the US), by the way.

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

(emphasis added)

Deleting copyrighted works is THEFT from the Public Domain!

voracitude ,

No, it is not. Copyright law ensures the original creator gets paid for their work and nobody can imitate it (quite literally “the right to copy”) without permission. Copyright law is about making money.

Heritage law is about preserving history.

TimeSquirrel , (edited )
@TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org avatar

The vast majority of regular internet users never think of things from this perspective because they've never been in a position of running a public facing website. To most people, the Internet is just there to be taken for granted like the public street and park outside someone's house. All the stuff on it just exists there by itself. That's also why we have issues with free speech online, where people expect certain rights that don't exist, because these aren't publicly owned websites and people aren't getting that.

lambda ,
@lambda@programming.dev avatar

Well put.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

To most people, the Internet is just there to be taken for granted like the public street and park outside someone’s house.

Both of which require maintenance that most people don’t think about…

superkret ,

Maybe the internet should be treated more like public infrastructure. If everyone communicates primarily online, the lack of freedom of speech on online platforms is a problem. And the sudden disappearance of a service people depend on, too (not that I think this website is a good example).

helenslunch ,
@helenslunch@feddit.nl avatar

As the owner, it’s up to me if I want it up or not.

You can archive it without keeping it “up”.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • lifeLocal
  • random
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •