Sorry Appin, we're not taking down our article about your attempts to silence

[SturgeonsLaw]

Love seeing people stand up to bullies. Techdirt has been fighting the good fight for a very long time.

[abirch]

The Streisand Effect is real. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Thank God Tech dirt stood up

[dannyobrien]

For those who don't get (the whole) reference, Mike Masnick, who founded and heads Techdirt, is the original coiner of the term "Streisand effect".

He's also been legally targeted by those who want to silence critical coverage of their behaviour before, and received an EFF Pioneer Award in 2017 for his journalistic work (though he joked at the time "The sort of obvious interpretation to me is that this is an award for getting sued"). I don't know whether his acceptance speech is online somewhere but I remember it being a vivid description of the pressure legal threats have on people and businesses, even when they are ultimately dismissed.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/celebrating-2017-pione...

[redcobra762]

The original Reuters story that was removed as a result of an Indian court ruling has been preserved by Distributed Denial of Secrets, a link to which can be found in the article.

[Dalewyn]

The Streisand Effect is in full force alright: I never even heard of "Appin" until this thread.

[satori99]

It was Techdirt founder, Mike Masnick, who first coined the term Streisand Effect 19 years ago:

https://www.techdirt.com/2005/01/05/since-when-is-it-illegal...

[2024throwaway]

Or Rajat Khare. Noted sleezebag.

[Animats]

Right. Now it's on Techdirt, Columbia Journalism Review, MuckRock, Politico, Daily Beast, Wikipedia, Wired...

[wolverine876]

That means they were effective (or you are generally missing important news). Reuters didn't stand up to them, as of maybe a week ago, and took down a story.

[solsane]

Another reason to feel good about donating to the EFF.

[dylan604]

Hey TechDirt! What's the point of making a image of text to embed in your site? Its text becomes blurry and hard to read compared to using an actual font. What a horrible decisions for legibility.

But seriously, what's the thought process for a website to do this? Even embedded tweets are not pre-rendered images. Some one in some meeting decided that using a rasterized image would be awesomesauce. What kind of sick people were involved?

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

I think it's a reasonable way to present it as evidence of what had been available from someone else's server rather than just words that are presented by their own server. From an accessibility perspective, it would be nice if they could ensure that a screen reader will start reading the text when it encounters the image but it otherwise seems to be a good reporting practice.

[nickdurfe]

??? Those images aren't blurry or hard to read at all. What does it really matter if they embed a legible image or use text?