Wayback Machine back in read-only mode after DDoS, may need further maintenance.

  • WaterSword@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    The thing is sometimed articles must be removed from IA (copyright (I disagree with that one) or when information is leaked that could threaten lives), with a blockchain this would be impossible

    • tehmics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      this would be impossible

      Perfect.

      I’d be interested in seeing real examples where lives are threatened. I find it unlikely that the internet archive would be the exclusive arbiter of so-called deadly information

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I thought of something but I don’t know if it’s a good example.

        Here’s the hypothetical:

        A criminal backs up a CSAM archive. Maybe the criminal is caught, heck say they’re executed. Pedos can now share the archive forever over encrypted messengers without fear of it being deleted? Not ideal.

      • WaterSword@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        There was an actual example where a journalistic article about afghanistan accidentally leaked names of some sources and people who helped westerners in afghanistan, which did actually endanger those people’s lives.

        • tehmics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          If they’re leaked, they’re leaked. The archive doesn’t change that one way or the other

          • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            Gotcha so you actually stated your previous question in bad faith as you had no interest in the answer to begin with.