Comment by JumpCrisscross
15 hours ago
> block archive.org and thus no one will read their articles and they can go under?
…why would they go under if the people who don’t pay for news stop reading them?
15 hours ago
> block archive.org and thus no one will read their articles and they can go under?
…why would they go under if the people who don’t pay for news stop reading them?
Media influence and authority has historically depended on getting cited by writing that is more directly relevant to the reader's concern (i.e. the topic of research).
The paywalls were one thing, but disallowing archival is practically suicide.
> disallowing archival is practically suicide
The Times alone pulls a multiple of the Internet Archive’s visitors [1][2].
[1] https://www.semrush.com/website/archive.org/overview/
[2] https://www.semrush.com/website/nytimes.com/overview/
Yes and citations are a matter of quality, not quantity.
The whole point of archiving is so that people can review it later. People living in the future are the vast majority of readership (and no they didn't pay for it).
The article's place in historical context is far more important than the paper itself. Writing that stands the test of time and that gets cited frequently is where all the authority and credibility comes from. It's absurd that the NYT of all places can be this boneheaded, but I guess it's a sign of the times.