A Chinese state-backed institution has devised a way to identify users who send messages via Apple Inc.’s popular AirDrop feature, Beijing’s government claims, as part of broader efforts to root out undesirable content.
I use Quad9 because it’s the one I want to use, and some other reasons that I decided on at the time but can’t remember (something to do with encrypting DNS).
I’m not going to change my posture because one dodgy website decided to behave in a dodgy manner. archive.today is not some charity saint acting in the public interest - that’s confusing it with archive.org/Internet Archive/The Way Back Machine. archive.today is passing off as a more respectable organisation.
Mind you, after Internet Archive fucked up with their lawsuit from book publishers, and subsequently had a judge explicitly rule that their “one copy, one share” philosophy for digital lending was illegal, they’re not great in my books either. They basically made the situation worse for everyone, meanwhile they used it as an opportunity to drum up more donations, all the while risking being shut down and everyone losing The Way Back Machine. Although, really I put most of the blame on their lawyer, who of course was the real winner in all that.
Wait, wasn’t the case about the archive giving people unlimited borrowing during COVID?
Yes. That I don’t have an issue with, although I think it was a mistake in hindsight.
The issue was trying to face the publishers head on in court, and then coming at them with a frivilous legal argument that had no hope in succeeding. They’ve done the same with their appeal - and donors have paid for both. They should have done absolutely everything they could to settle out of court.
To me using the internet archive’s interface is clunkier than archive.today’s. Maybe it’s the thumbnails, maybe it’s the loading times.
I agree, but just because archive.today is more polished doesn’t mean it’s more trustworthy or respectable.
No they did lose it, I believe. As part of the trial a judge ruled that scanning physical copies and lending out one digital copy per physical copy scanned was illegal. They were operating in a legal grey area, then as soon as they came out of that grey area they lost it. That’s why I think they should have settled out of court.
They were sued for lending unlimited copies, fought it, then ended up being told they couldn’t lend any copies without a license.
I use Quad9 because it’s the one I want to use, and some other reasons that I decided on at the time but can’t remember (something to do with encrypting DNS).
I’m not going to change my posture because one dodgy website decided to behave in a dodgy manner. archive.today is not some charity saint acting in the public interest - that’s confusing it with archive.org/Internet Archive/The Way Back Machine. archive.today is passing off as a more respectable organisation.
Mind you, after Internet Archive fucked up with their lawsuit from book publishers, and subsequently had a judge explicitly rule that their “one copy, one share” philosophy for digital lending was illegal, they’re not great in my books either. They basically made the situation worse for everyone, meanwhile they used it as an opportunity to drum up more donations, all the while risking being shut down and everyone losing The Way Back Machine. Although, really I put most of the blame on their lawyer, who of course was the real winner in all that.
Wait, wasn’t the case about the archive giving people unlimited borrowing during COVID?
To me using the internet archive’s interface is clunkier than archive.today’s. Maybe it’s the thumbnails, maybe it’s the loading times.
Yes. That I don’t have an issue with, although I think it was a mistake in hindsight.
The issue was trying to face the publishers head on in court, and then coming at them with a frivilous legal argument that had no hope in succeeding. They’ve done the same with their appeal - and donors have paid for both. They should have done absolutely everything they could to settle out of court.
I agree, but just because archive.today is more polished doesn’t mean it’s more trustworthy or respectable.
Ah, that makes me much calmer. I thought they also lost their right to classic library-style lending…
No they did lose it, I believe. As part of the trial a judge ruled that scanning physical copies and lending out one digital copy per physical copy scanned was illegal. They were operating in a legal grey area, then as soon as they came out of that grey area they lost it. That’s why I think they should have settled out of court.
They were sued for lending unlimited copies, fought it, then ended up being told they couldn’t lend any copies without a license.