Adanisi

archive.org could archive the content and only publish it if the page has been dark for a certain amount of time.

It's user-driven. Nothing would get archived in this case. And what if the content changes but the page remains up? What then? Fairly sure this is why Wikipedia uses archives.

I agree that many sites use advertising in a different way. I use it in the older internet sense -- someone contacts me to sponsor a page or portion of the site, and that page gets a single banner, created in-house, with no tracking. I've been using the internet for 36 years. I'm well aware of many uses that I view as unethical, and I take great pains not to replicate them on my own site.

Pretty sure mainstream ad blockers won't block a custom in-house banner. And if it has no tracking, then it doesn't matter whether it's on Archive or not, you're getting paid the same, no?

Pr

Wah wah wah, my stuff's been preserved and I dont like it.

Not to mention that I lose control over what's done with that content -- are they going to let Google train AI on it with their new partnership?

Lmao you think Google needs to go through Archive to scrape your site? Delusional.

Not to mention that I'm losing advertising revenue if someone views the site in an archive.

The mechanisms used to serve ads over the internet nowadays are nasty in a privacy sense, and a psychological manipulation sense. And you want people to be affected by them just to line your pockets? Are you also opposed to ad blockers by any chance?

I have fewer problems with archiving if the original site is gone, but to mirror and republish active content with no supported way to prevent it short of legal action is ridiculous.

And how do you suggest a site which has been wiped off the face of the internet gets archived? Maybe we need to invest in a time machine for the Internet Archive?

Sites like Wikipedia were archiving urls and then linking to the archive, effectively removing branding and blocking user engagement.

What do you mean by "engagement", exactly? Clicking on ads?

They have a history of blocking oil terminals. All it achieves is much less media coverage and a quick stop to it.

Hmmm, you complain, but yet you participate in society. Curious!

You mean like when they blockaded oil terminals and it got not nearly as much attention as this and got them swiftly whisked away?

The part where it's action targeting the oil companies? You know, like you were suggesting they do?

It's not hard to look up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-61347944

Took 2 seconds.

They literally DID. The fact you don't know about it shows why they also do their publicity stunts.

Yeah, media bias fact check, totally not based on some guys political opinions...

Lemmy.zip is on 0.19.5

This is disgusting.

It would have been easier to just remove these restrictions for everyone.