The grab list: how museums decide what to save in a disaster | Hacker News Reader

The grab list: how museums decide what to save in a disaster

economist.com

77 pointssurprisetalk43 comments

https://archive.is/TajtJ (2025)

I wonder. Would it be possible for any/all submissions to automatically generate (and provide) and archive.is/archive.org link? @dang

I can't think of any large downsides, it would mean every submission would have an available snapshot for the given time, and we would no longer need a user comment to provide this.

There’s a big difference between accepting people will post links that just happen to, sometimes get people past paywalls - and operationalising that so it’s the default behaviour

Actually I'd say the opposite: If it only happens with paywalled sites it's clear that its purpose it to circumvent paywalls. If you always do it, It's so there is a record of the original site at time of posting.

It would also help with sites that can't handle the hacker News traffic load. Happens all the time

didn't google try this with AMP or whatever? It wasn't very popular

One large downside is that publishers whose paywalls are being circumvented by the act of submitting to HN, would consider legal action against HN.

Why isn't that already an issue then? archive.is links remain, despite being easy to otherwise detect?

IANAL, but it would seem to me HN couldn't be liable, since it is a third party (archive.is/org) caching the site. In fact, I always assumed that's why the links aren't removed.

I am also not a lawyer, but I would guess that a court might differentiate between choosing not to actively scour user generated content for archive links, versus choosing to proactively provide those links.

I'd guess otherwise.

To expand on this; I don't think other forms of active moderation get this pass, you don't get to harbour copyrighted IP, CPP or other illegal material posted on a forum by just not moderating.

further, if intent would be a possible defence, I already mentioned that archiving everything looks better than only having links when there are paywalls, active or otherwise.

from a moral position, I don't think HN moves the needle wrt enabling bypassing - most if not all HN users are likely fully capable of using archiving sites themselves, if not automating the process themselves.

I don't think morality has anything to do with HN's action/lack of action here. They are likely just balancing risk & reward.

How much work to enable auto paywall busting? >$0

How much reward? $0

How much extra risk that a publisher will make your life difficult, regardless of morality or the letter of the law? >0%

I can't imagine why they would bother when HN users seem happy enough to do the work for free.

I'm confident that you didn't realize what you were saying, but I really chuckled at "I can't think of any large downsides [in institutionalizing a clearly very legally questionable practice]".

Yes, I didn't realize this was a very legally questionable practice, let alone clearly. Can you explain why?

There's a thing called "copyright" and it's kind of like a union, but for people who write or create art. It gives them the right to decide who gets to make a copy. Many of the best sources of news put up a paywall because it's what allows them to pay their reporters. When you make an illicit copy without their permission, you undermine their ability to make a living. In other words, eat.

I asked pgwhalen specifically, so chiming in with a smug/condescending reply isn't welcome.

It's also IMHO a misplaced or false criticism, per my other comments in this thread.

GP’s explanation is better than I would have given and didn’t seem smug or condescending to me - from my perspective it was welcome.

Your own original had the same problem, so let me play it straight; I don't think there is a legal issue, let alone a clear one.

You don't think phrasing like "There's a thing called 'copyright'", as if I'm not aware of what copyright is, isn't condescending?

Now, either of you relate that concept to a suggestion that HN link to archive.org

I'm not interested in having a debate on the legality of it which is why I said "legally questionable." It doesn't strike me as implausible that you wouldn't know what copyright is, if you don't accept the premise that linking to the internet archive for any and all paywalled contemporary content is at least legally questionable.

> if you don't accept the premise that ... is at least legally questionable.

The premise was that this is so obvious that my naivety is funny. But no, you don't want to debate that point - Why would you care to consider otherwise, it's not you losing face if correct.

Here's an uninvited counterpoint anyway:

https://blog.archive.org/2024/03/01/fair-use-in-action-at-th...

You'll also notice that the link in this post (https://archive.is/TajtJ) shows a 'log in' button, implying that log-in credentials where not used (or abused) to get/share this snapshot.

I don’t follow the first paragraph of this comment at all, it just seems vaguely antagonistic. You also seem to be suggesting I’m taking a view on a debate that I am not.

That such a blog post exists at least suggests the legal “question” exists, which again is the only thing I said in the first place.

The practise in this case is not starting a competing service to archive.org, but linking to it, so the downsides are what?

Presumably if hosting and sharing copyrighted content is legally questionable, then linking to it (especially systematically) might be as well. IANAL.

Perhaps, but for different reasons (not liability for hosting). And if there is liability in intend - I already raised those questions here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46669775

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46669774

> You don't think phrasing like "There's a thing called 'copyright'", as if I'm not aware of what copyright is, isn't condescending?

No, not really. You just seem to be trying to pick a fight.

Yes, really. Not the first time you've hopped on a thread to make a bad call coupled with a personal insinuation:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43966385

Large downsides? How about the news sources going bankrupt? Someone has to pay for reporters.

The sooner some "news sources" go bankrupt the better, especially The Economist.

> Why do I have to complete a CAPTCHA?

> Completing the CAPTCHA proves you are a human and gives you temporary access to the web property.

> What can I do to prevent this in the future?

> If you are on a personal connection, like at home, you can run an anti-virus scan on your device to make sure it is not infected with malware.

Love how actual captcha spyware has turned to victim-blaming to justify its existence.

If malicious or scraping traffic is coming from your IP, it's not victim blaming.

AI has ruined everything good and free for everyone except a few oligarchs.

> If malicious or scraping traffic is coming from your IP, it's not victim blaming

But it is not; my IP is a residential address paid for with a credit card associated to a human who visits like 6 websites.

The message is stating that you're seeing a Captcha because suspicious traffic has come from your network. If you're not doing suspicious things, "check that you're not infected with malware" is valid feedback.

No, the message is stating that because I don't allow Javascript to fingerprint and commodify my browser. The euphemized nonsense about malware is just an insult to reason at this point.

Privacy is suspicious nowadays.

No, it’s because Cloudflare and archive.ph have some pissing content going. I forget the details, but it has nothing to do with malware on anyone’s machine. Somewhere on HN someone has given a better explanation, but I’m not spelunking for it.

The vast majority of website-gate captchas are served by cloudflare these days. You can use the privacy pass [0] browser extension to skip them. Privacy passes are an open standard [1], so you can re-implement it yourself if you don’t trust that extension.

[0]: https://developers.cloudflare.com/waf/tools/privacy-pass/ [1]: RFC 9576 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9576.html, RFC 9577 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9577.html, RFC 9578 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9578.html

95% of the time I click the tick box and wiggle my mouse and it lets me through without doing a captcha.

I believe they check your mouse for human-like movement as an additional factor. Could be wrong but I haven't been bothered by many captchas in the last couple years.

I'm not pulling my pants down (enable javascript to have my browser identified) and wiggling anything, virtually or otherwise.

They also try to do it by design: The Menil Collection in Houston keeps their storage on the top floor to avoid damage from Hurricane flooding.

I have my grab list. People first, then musical instruments.

I'm gonna throw the NAS with the family backups out the back window while running upstairs to get my son.

But yeah, with a bit of planning you can turn it into a yes-and situation.

Also: 48 hours. Can you provide for yourself and your neighbor for 48 hours without any help from the authorities? Does the Kanban card for pasta and tomato sauce always leave 10000 calories in the pantry? Got firewood, matches, and know where the nearest spring is? (This is easier in a culture where we still have running fountains with dates like 1780 on them.)

> This is easier in a culture where we still have running fountains with dates like 1780 on them.

Oh wow, that's cool. May I ask what culture that is?

Switzerland, but I guess our neighbors valued free clean drinking water too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com