this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
1673 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

59448 readers
3553 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I explained why not in the sentence directly following the one that you quoted. Here it is again:

Let someone else who's purpose is fighting those fights take it on and stick to preserving those precious archives out of harm's way.

To explain in more detail: The Internet Archive is custodian to an irreplaceable archive of Internet history and raw data. If they go and get themselves destroyed at the hands of book publishers fighting lawsuits over ebook piracy, that archive is at risk of being destroyed along with them. Or being sold off at whatever going-out-of-business sale they have, perhaps even to those very giant publishers that destroyed them.

That is why not them in particular. Let someone who isn't carrying around that precious archive go and get into fights like this.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

That does make sense. They do have "more to lose" in that sense.