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
I would agree with you if they automatically set this for everyone. I'm not sure how come that other sites aren't showing up in the archive. (I'm not a customer of theirs or anything, I'm already hosting my own stuff)
> Disallow: /
Denied!
> 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...
You can always run your own crawls with grab site: https://github.com/ArchiveTeam/grab-site
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.
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
> 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.)
If you create something physical, say a popup art installation, it's trivial to dismantle it and it stops existing (other maybe in some photos or video). When it comes to text the same isn't as simple and it requires a social compact (ie laws)
As for gaslighting, you can archive things without redistributing them. You can just publish hashes of what people published and only redistribute/republish in the context of proving someone said something
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.
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.
Trying to see the limits of this logic. Would you say that if you paint a painting , you should have no right to shred it ?
Text is just trivial to copy perfectly and doesn't have the intrinsic protection of other mediums
If things were archived in a artic vault to be opened in 1000 years maybe I'd respect the arguments for archiving better
Current "archiving" is steal and rehosting other people's work/labor
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?
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.
The first time I tripped acid - I remember writing a page of notes on how sad I felt that I would never get to experience the exact way a memory occurred to me in the past.
What’s even more saddening is that with tech like Rewind, and what’ll be the future of Rewind in 10-20 years, by 2040, I fully expect all memories/events ever produced to be logged in an almost endless database of all human experience.
But - because time is linear, we wouldn’t ever fully be able to simulate the past of say everything before 2030? And that’s just so sad.
Plus, if everyone can delete their mistakes, we’ll live in a world where it looks like nobody makes mistakes, and so we’ll be less tolerant of mistakes.
> 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.
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.