Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.
As I said, they already shown they were willing to participate in illegal copyright violation right from the site’s inception. Why is one of those things a red line and the other isn’t? They’re both evidence that the site’s controller is willing to flagrantly break laws for their own purposes.
Nothing was ever “stopping them from carrying out malicious activity by misusing their content.” Not from day one.
So, the secret to getting away with awful crimes is quantity? Okay, good to know.
Is it really an “unreliable source”, though? The owner of the site is acting maliciously with regards to this DDOS, of course, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s going to act maliciously about the contents of archive.today itself.
One could make the case that the owner of archive.today was already flagrantly flouting copyright law, and therefore a criminal, and therefore “unreliable” right from the get-go. Let’s not leap to conclusions here.
You’re misinterpreting what Wikimedia’s “free knowledge” mandate is about. They have a hard-line requirement that the knowlege they distribute is legally free, for example - it has to be under an open license. archive.today is quite the opposite of that. They don’t just archive any old knowledge willy-nilly, they’ve got standards. And so forth.
Simply running an archive.today clone would not fit. The “source documents only” archive would already be stretching the edges rather far. There’s already Wikisource, for example, and it’s got the “open licenses only” restriction.
I think that’d go pretty far beyond Wikimedia’s mandate, but having something whose purpose was specifically archiving just the sources for their articles would be pretty awesome.
Even for Trump this was a remarkably cheese-brained Executive Social Media Post. One for the history books.
There’s precedent. China made some trade deals with Nigeria and there’s hardly any ice hockey going on in Nigeria now.
At some point medicine doesn’t help. Trump is well past that point now.
I’m Canadian, so it’s in my interest to jangle whatever keys I can to distract the orange toddler from his “51st state” delusion.
Next: Trump demands US ownership of greentext@sh.itjust.works for national security reasons.
Surely all of these problems would go away if teenagers would simply act rationally and do as they’re told. Has anyone tried explaining this to the teenagers?
“I regret that so many people are offended.”
If this was fiction I’d be complaining about how on-the-nose it was.
Had a whole civil war over it and still didn’t get rid of slavery.
Smaller populations make it easier to form social bubbles, I suppose. And this community in particular is focused on not liking something, so it’s easy to throw out a quick “ooh, I hate thing!” To get some positive engagement.
No, I’m sure if we just keep asking for fairness the white supremacists will give her a chance this time.
I seriously doubt that any institutional or otherwise large-scale investors would have reacted to that. It has absolutely no impact on Bitcoin in practical terms.
Username checks out.
What I’m pointing out is that this target audience of AI haters is actually the whole gaming community.
Where do you get that from?
Sure, I’m not saying this isn’t “malicious.”
I’m questioning why this particular instance of lawbreaking makes his site an “unreliable source”, whereas all the copyright violation he’s been up to all along didn’t? And now you’re bringing in speculative instances of future lawbreaking that also seem unrelated, what does crypto mining have to do with the reliability of the sources archived there?
My point here is that people are jumping from “he did something bad that I don’t like!” to “therefore everything he does is bad and wrong!” Without a clear logical connection between those things. Sure, the DDOS thing is a good reason to try to avoid sending traffic to his site. But that has nothing to do with the reliability of the information stored there.