It's nice, the only problem I got with omg.lol is that Wayback Machine archives are unavailable for all domains. I'm concerned that this part of the internet won't be saved for others to see in the future.
Wayback Machine is arguably a more durable archive site than these other two archives, but the fact that it can be archived elsewhere would indicate that the problem is likely to be on archive.org's end of things rather than omg.lol
This blocking of the archiver may be philosophical, but not a disgreement. Just speculating, but on the fediverse there are quite a few people who feel their social interactions are personal and 'in the moment'. Something akin to the Cozy Web [0] though not being too strict about (everything is still public after all).
It’s possible the site owner has asked the Archive to dark site specific captures. Capture jobs will still run, but they won’t be available publicly (until some future date).
That kind of sucks :( So much of the "small internet" of the past people talk about in relation to this stuff, is only really preserved in any significant scale by IA. Hope it's not the operator making a big sweeping decision for all users.
Some might argue that is the magic of it. It is much easier to be happy when you miss some things, and look forwars to others. Some listen to radio, or use streaming services in a radio like way (no skipping, no targeted searches) for the same reason, sure they could keep looping their favourite song on whatever platform, but its waaay more exciting when it comes on unexpectabtly.
Our interactions having a fleeting nature makes them more special and forces us to be more emotionally involved.
Just an alternative take, no a statment of my personal opinion.
I think that's great.. archiving should be opt-in not opt-out
You can read and access my work/words as I want. And once I don't or change my mind you can't. Once someone posts something, you don't have a right to it in perpetuity .. That's how things should work - but that's just my opinion
Except for the artifice that is copyright, things don't work like that for anything else. Reality doesn't work like that.
> Once someone posts something, you don't have a right to it in perpetuity
On the contrary, once someone posts something, they don't have control over it anymore. You can't make me unsee what you wrote, or unhear what you said. You have no right to stop me from writing it down, and even if you can stop me from republishing it verbatim right now, you generally don't have the right to do it indefinitely.
> And once I don't or change my mind you can't.
To be clear, I'm not dogmatically firm about it, but I believe that a word in which you get to distance yourself from past views, or mark them mistaken, and people accept it, would be much better than the world in which you're free to gaslight everyone else by pretending that something never happened, even though it did.
(All that on top of the usual point that it's neither the author nor their audience that can judge what's archive-worthy - only future people can.)
I Disagree. There's not a big difference between someone reading your stuff and saving it versus automatic archiving. Being able to delete what you said makes real discourse with a bad actor very hard if not impossible. If you change your mind, you are always free to rectify, but you shouldn't be able to pretend you never said this or that.
I know there's a line to draw somewhere, personal blogs aren't our countries' leaders' Twitter accounts or press conferences. Copying someone's copyrighted work in form of an archive might some legal implications I'm not aware of. But keeping things for posteriority is important and I don't believe people should be able to choose what part of their words and actions will be recorded and which won't.
In the UK, if you publish a book, magazine or newspaper, by law you have to send a copy to the British Library for archive. A lot of other countries have similar laws. In the UK, legal deposit has expanded to include the web (so long as the person/group creating the content is in the UK), but since many individuals and small businesses are unaware of legal deposit, the UK Web Archive will archive a lot of the web by themselves.
Tom Scott interviewed some people from the British Library, and they explain the importance of archiving:
> The importance of legal deposit not being selective, and being everything, is: we can't decide today what's going to be important in 50 years' time. We want everything, because we don't know what will be important.
He also added his own thoughts:
> I cannot overstate just how useful it is to be able to track down things that never made it online, or to research out of print, forgotten books where there are no other copies available, or to scan through every issue of an obscure local newspaper to track down one reference. This is the raw text of history, as it happened, and someone has to keep it preserved for the future.
That’s really weird. If someone posts a sign on their store window, and I take a picture of it, should I be required to delete the picture when they remove the sign?
Vehement disagree. Many of the early communities I participated in are gone forever, and it's a shame to think of how much more has been lost to time.
In the absolute limit, I hope our future descendents reconstruct the past light cone and can replay all of our biochemical thoughts and emotions. Perhaps even simulating our existence and perception to exacting precision.
Maybe they'll get to see t-rexes in their natural habitat, visit lost 90s websites, and feel what taking the organic chemistry final was like.
Totally agree. The tech community has a massive arrogance problem where we tend towards opt-out vs opt-in for everything. Just because us tech-savvy folks understand the consequences of, say, posting something online, doesn’t mean the bulk of humanity who isn’t tech savvy also understands that and agrees with us.
Disagree. There's a reason why in many countries copyright doesn't apply to archives, and you can't opt-out of it. It's for history's sake since there's no way to tell what is and isn't important.
> You can read and access my work/words as I want. And once I don't or change my mind you can't.
I can't agree. It's much better to have a voluntary opt out like with robots.txt. I would say one of the top 10 observations about the internet is that you should consider anything posted publically there will last forever and treat it as such, otherwise you're doing yourself a disservice. Just one guy's opinion, though.
anjel|2 years ago
Wayback Machine is arguably a more durable archive site than these other two archives, but the fact that it can be archived elsewhere would indicate that the problem is likely to be on archive.org's end of things rather than omg.lol
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
burkaman|2 years ago
lucb1e|2 years ago
rapnie|2 years ago
[0] https://maggieappleton.com/cozy-web
politelemon|2 years ago
> The same snapshot had been made 25 minutes ago. You can make new capture of this URL after 1 hour.
But yeah it's strange, nothing appears in the archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://bw.omg.l...
toomuchtodo|2 years ago
You can always run your own crawls with grab site: https://github.com/ArchiveTeam/grab-site
graypegg|2 years ago
Grimblewald|2 years ago
Our interactions having a fleeting nature makes them more special and forces us to be more emotionally involved.
Just an alternative take, no a statment of my personal opinion.
contrarian1234|2 years ago
You can read and access my work/words as I want. And once I don't or change my mind you can't. Once someone posts something, you don't have a right to it in perpetuity .. That's how things should work - but that's just my opinion
TeMPOraL|2 years ago
> Once someone posts something, you don't have a right to it in perpetuity
On the contrary, once someone posts something, they don't have control over it anymore. You can't make me unsee what you wrote, or unhear what you said. You have no right to stop me from writing it down, and even if you can stop me from republishing it verbatim right now, you generally don't have the right to do it indefinitely.
> And once I don't or change my mind you can't.
To be clear, I'm not dogmatically firm about it, but I believe that a word in which you get to distance yourself from past views, or mark them mistaken, and people accept it, would be much better than the world in which you're free to gaslight everyone else by pretending that something never happened, even though it did.
(All that on top of the usual point that it's neither the author nor their audience that can judge what's archive-worthy - only future people can.)
leononame|2 years ago
I know there's a line to draw somewhere, personal blogs aren't our countries' leaders' Twitter accounts or press conferences. Copying someone's copyrighted work in form of an archive might some legal implications I'm not aware of. But keeping things for posteriority is important and I don't believe people should be able to choose what part of their words and actions will be recorded and which won't.
johnfernow|2 years ago
Tom Scott interviewed some people from the British Library, and they explain the importance of archiving:
> The importance of legal deposit not being selective, and being everything, is: we can't decide today what's going to be important in 50 years' time. We want everything, because we don't know what will be important.
He also added his own thoughts:
> I cannot overstate just how useful it is to be able to track down things that never made it online, or to research out of print, forgotten books where there are no other copies available, or to scan through every issue of an obscure local newspaper to track down one reference. This is the raw text of history, as it happened, and someone has to keep it preserved for the future.
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNVuIU6UUiM
Aeolun|2 years ago
That’s really weird. If someone posts a sign on their store window, and I take a picture of it, should I be required to delete the picture when they remove the sign?
echelon|2 years ago
In the absolute limit, I hope our future descendents reconstruct the past light cone and can replay all of our biochemical thoughts and emotions. Perhaps even simulating our existence and perception to exacting precision.
Maybe they'll get to see t-rexes in their natural habitat, visit lost 90s websites, and feel what taking the organic chemistry final was like.
porcoda|2 years ago
CaptainFever|2 years ago
> You can read and access my work/words as I want. And once I don't or change my mind you can't.
That's not reasonable.
stjohnswarts|2 years ago
afpx|2 years ago
bovermyer|2 years ago
If you publish something publicly, it should be available for all time.
If you change your mind, it's on you to make that known.
blakewatson|2 years ago
yellow_lead|2 years ago
Ringz|2 years ago