Comment by saint_fiasco
9 days ago
I suppose that could be solved with a delay. Limit internet archive for articles that are less than a week old.
9 days ago
I suppose that could be solved with a delay. Limit internet archive for articles that are less than a week old.
> Limit internet archive for articles that are less than a week old.
I mean this as a side note rather than a counterargument (because people learn to take screenshots, and because what can you do about particularly bad faith news orgs?): Immediate archival can capture silent changes (and misleadingly announced changes). A headline might change to better fit the article body. An editor's note might admit a mistakenly attributed quote.
Or a news org might pull a Fox News [1][2] by rewriting both the headline and article body to cover up a mistake that unravels the original article's reason for existing: The original headline was "SNAP beneficiaries threaten to ransack stores over government shutdown". The headline was changed to "AI videos of SNAP beneficiaries complaining about cuts go viral". An editor's note was added [3][4]: "This article previously reported on some videos that appear to have been generated by AI without noting that. This has been corrected." I think Fox News deleted the article.
[1] https://xcancel.com/KFILE/status/1984673901872558291
[2] https://archive.ph/NL6oR
[3] https://xcancel.com/JusDayDa/status/1984693256417083798
[4] https://archive.ph/XEI9E
That would diminish archival accuracy, an outlet could amend the text without third party proof.
I don't see the connection to adding the delay. I think the suggestion was to have a snapshot at time of publication but wait a week to make it public.
I actually didn't initially think of the parent's objection nor your rebuttal. This is why I like reading HN comments.