Comment by beej71
1 day ago
What I don't see on that page is where they explicitly don't promise to not modify anything in the archive.
1 day ago
What I don't see on that page is where they explicitly don't promise to not modify anything in the archive.
> What I don't see on that page is where they explicitly don't promise to not modify anything in the archive.
I'm quoting all of that because is lacks an explicit promise of non-modification /i
Meanwhile seriously, if you were disappointed not to see e.g. "We explicitly don't promise not to modify", then perhaps you should consider why, regardless, this site was trusted enough to get a gazillion links in Wikipedia... and HN.
> I'm quoting all of that because is lacks an explicit promise of non-modification.
And I'm quoting all of that because it lacks an explicit (or implicit) promise of modification. :)
It was (emphasis on past-tense) so-trusted because it advertises itself as an archival site. (The linked disclaimer is all about it not being a "long-term" archival site. It says it archives pages for latecomers. There is an implication here that it archives them accurately. What use is a site for latecomers if they change the content to be something else?) If they'd said or indicated they would be changing the content to no longer reflect the original site, Wikipedia would not have linked to them because they wouldn't be a credible source.
In any case, now I can't use them to share or use links since we can no longer trust those archives to be untampered. When I share a link to nyt content on archive.today or copy and paste content into email, I'm putting my name on that declaring "nyt printed this". If that's not true, it's my reputation.
Just like it was archive.today's.
> When I share a link to nyt content on archive.today or copy and paste content into email, I'm putting my name on that declaring "nyt printed this". If that's not true, it's my reputation.
What if the nyt article itself is the problem? How does that square?
[dead]