>doesn't archive social media posts
>doesn't archive dynamic pages
>doesn't archive pages behind paywalls
What went wrong?

>>106124141 (OP)
>deletes things that incriminate three letter agencies
What did the internet archive mean by this

>doesn't aid in stalking of individual citizens online

Not everything needs to be archived. Future generations don't need to see my shitposts on MySpace from 15 years ago. They stand to benefit from seeing other things, e.g. books, papers, government documents etc.

Centralizing archives is kind of a bad idea—especially when it comes to hosting—because you're basically trusting that whoever’s in charge won’t delete or mess with the files later on.

It’d be way more interesting if there were a decentralized system where places like the Internet Archive could still save posts, but also sign a file to prove it's legit. The actual file wouldn’t go on the blockchain—just a signature that shows the file hasn’t been tampered with. The idea being that they could delete the file, but not the signature.

That way, if someone came across a copy of a file, they could say, “Cool, this is real—the Internet Archive signed it back in February 2027.”

One of the problems with archives right now is that a post saved by some random anonymous user doesn’t carry the same weight as something archived by a known site like Internet Archive or Archive.is—even though those sites could still edit stuff after the fact. A setup like this would add some much-needed transparency.

>>106124141 (OP)
>>doesn't archive pages behind paywalls
It does, thoughbeit?

>>106124141 (OP)
because the glowies are already doing that. no need to waste resources doing it twice

>>106124141 (OP)
Nothing of any real value lost.

>>106124146
Name one time

Come home, White (Slavic) man

>>106124595
About 6 days ago

>>106124190
>>106124595
There's also the matter of things getting taken down by bad actors, like how the site was taken down almost a year ago by faggots pretending to do it in the name of Palestine--how convenient.

I don't even remember if anything was actually removed, I just remember that the site was taken down for some time, and that user data was leaked.

Regardless of who was really behind it, it brings attention to the issue of a centralized archive--it's subject to attack and/or alteration. A decentralized archive maintained by everyone is the way to go.

>>106124146
elaborate

>>106124823
The problem with centralizing archives is that it’s the same kind of bullshit as torrents without seeds. What I like about the idea where only the signing is centralized - limited to a few providers considered “trustworthy” - is that it massively reduces the chances of tampering with the archive.

“Cool, institution X created the archive copy and signed it in the cloud.” After that, their job is done. Anyone who ever downloaded archive could prove it is real—or that if there was any tampering, it would’ve had to involve Internet Archive (or whoever signed it) and would’ve had to happen back then, possibly years ago, during a time when there wasn’t any widespread interest in tempering with that information.

Also, decentralizing only the signing of backups that were verified by a trusted institution would definitely require fewer resources, as far as hosting and whatever.

I’m not even against centralized archives—in many cases, they’ve proven way more stable than the alternatives. You can still find pages archived on Wayback from 2001, and you definitely can’t say the same about something uploaded to rapidshare or whatever. But the problem is, centralization makes those archives a big target for takedowns. And, obviously, once the content is removed from the centralized host, that’s it—you’ve got no backup. Sure, you could archive a site yourself and host it via torrent or something, but… who’s gonna trust you?

>>106124141 (OP)
>doesn't archive dogshit
Perfection. This kills the normofag.

almost every social media site has a robots.txt that blocks scrapers and if they didn't, theyd get sued

>>106124141 (OP)
>What went wrong?
Nothing. Why would you want to archive boring normalfag trash?

look for my app Topyc soon. this ends now
>>106124190
I aim to solve exactly these issues! Give me a week (not fucking 2!)

>>106124141 (OP)
Notthing apparently.

>>106124141 (OP)
Sweden already had a better national library.

>>106124141 (OP)
why would you want to archive social media posts? name one single social media post you liked in the last 2 weeks. You can't, because it made zero impact on you in any capacity despite you liking and reweeting it.

>>106124141 (OP)
The only people who use this now are pajeets spamming their github repo updates for every readme.md commit and not donating money to archive.org which is a waste of storage. Indians ruin everything.

>>106124141 (OP)
That's why (you) save the data, so that people in the future can observe historical context of xyz thing, because history books will only print what's appealing/convenient for authoritarians.

>>106124141 (OP)
>>doesn't archive social media posts
It does though. It even used to have a thing where if you fed it a Twitter profile, you got the option of also archiving X number of tweets as well

>>doesn't archive dynamic pages
That's just a limitation of their crawler. God knows what can even be done about that besides saving assets manually

FWIW, sometimes if you visit a page, and assets haven't been archived, it will try to archive those assets then and there, which kinda helps