Goodreads will list any book for the time being, even ones banned from Amazon. One example is The Culture of Critique - the link to Amazon goes to a broken page, but links to buy it from other vendors remain.
Link to the book - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/182136.The_Culture_of_Cr...
"You should not show identifiable people being beaten!"
That's true, because it could go one way or another depending on whether the revolution succeeds. If it does, though, it can help identify the perpetrators of brutality.
Publishing it is irresponsible, but destroying them is as well. This is potential criminal evidences.
I'm sure if they started doing this the Twitter outrage warriors wouldn't be happy about it and add to the difficulty of their job.
Somebody should classify this as an addictive behavior.
'The immanent urge to get emotionally excited by interacting with an equally excitable peer group on issues only remotely related to one's personal life'.
Internet Archive seems to be handling this kind of trouble quite well.
To my understanding websites can chose to not be included in the Wayback Machine.
I feel like we’re in the Internet equivalent of the early years of Hollywood. We’ve lost so many precious early movies because there were no backups of the film.
[0] https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-sea...
----> Why isn't the site I'm looking for in the archive?
Some sites may not be included because the automated crawlers were unaware of their existence at the time of the crawl. It's also possible that some sites were not archived because they were password protected, blocked by robots.txt, or otherwise inaccessible to our automated systems. Site owners might have also requested that their sites be excluded from the Wayback Machine.
----> How can I exclude or remove my site's pages from the Wayback Machine?
You can send an email request for us to review to [email protected] with the URL (web address) in the text of your message.
https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360004651732-Usin...
There are 110,000 public libraries in the United States. Plus thousands more private libraries. Seems like enough for U.S. history, at least.
Maybe that's a problem that everyone has? But it would be best if there was some offshore, FBI proof, kind of way to do this archiving.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. After 9/11, the libraries were the first to stand up to the government's desperate search for information. The feds wanted everyone's lending history, and ended up backing off when the libraries put up a fight.
At some point, you need curators and archivists.
But to find a provider of public access to archives more expansive than YouTube's, well, that's improvement.
I somehow don't get the same impression from same impression from YouTube
Thankfully censorship-resistant anonymous p2p file sharing systems exist, I hope they become more popular for archival work.
Liveleak, seriously? I'm not convinced that a site known for hosting gory and violent videos is really what these human rights activists are looking for.
[Edit] Some context: https://www.businessinsider.com/profile-of-hayden-hewitt-fou...
People who want to watch violent videos != human rights activists. There's the "blood and gore" people, and the "social justice warrior" people, and not a ton of overlap.
In order to solve this use case there would really need to be a site that combines LiveLeak's content moderation policy with an activist ethos.
So they're not really a great example.
You mean gory and violent videos like war crimes and human rights violations? Sounds like exactly the right site.
Archival of footage shouldn't be dependent on a third party platform that can, at will, delete every single video on a whim. Likely for this sort of thing a diligent archivist will need to put in the effort of storing it safely, because those videos will almost all end up being deleted on platforms that rely on ad revenue.