Comment by Jordan-117
20 hours ago
Even if they did, so what? There's nothing wrong with a news article removing personal information as a precaution. It's light-years away from altering the content of an archival snapshot in order to target someone else.
Well, that's the only name they removed, even though it didn't stand out among the other names in the investigation. Secondly, it's ironic to do so in an article tagged "Streisand Effect" so perhaps we're witnessing part of the performance. And thirdly, it's strange to blame AT for removing... the same name, and not blame Ars. Immediately accusing... AT of double standards and hypocrisy.
I am lost here. It is definitively an organized defamation campaign.
“You are guilty simply because I am hungry”
Seems more like Ars trying to avoid piling more attention on the name of a person that isn't actually involved.
And again, the accusation against Archive.today isn't just that they removed their "Nora" alias from a snapshot, but that they replaced it with the name of the blogger they were quarreling with. There's no defensible reason to do that outside of petty revenge (which tracks with the emails and public statements from the Archive.today maintainer).
> Ars trying to avoid piling more attention on the name of a person that isn't actually involved.
Oh, yes, by removing the name in the context of "Streisand Effect".
> petty revenge
How does it "revenge"? Was it a porn page? Or something bad?
It is likely to be just a funny placeholder name of the same length to come in mind.
--
We could find good and bad motives for both AT and Ars.
The bias against AT was here apriori. Paywall-story for CondeNast, russophobia for the rest.
1 reply →