How the Internet Archive is Waging War on Misinformation (ft.com) 73
San Francisco-based non-profit is archiving billions of web pages in a bid to preserve web history. From a report: Since the 2016 US election, as fears about the power of fake news have intensified, the archive has stepped up its efforts to combat misinformation. At a time when false and ultra-partisan content is rapidly created and spread, and social media pages are constantly updated, the importance of having an unalterable record of who said what, when has been magnified. "We're trying to put in a layer of accountability," said founder Brewster Kahle. Mr Kahle founded the archive, which now employs more than 100 staff and costs $18m a year to run, because he feared that what was appearing on the internet was not being saved and catalogued in the same way as newspapers and books. The organisation is funded through donations, grants and the fees it charges third parties that request specific digitisation services.
So far, the archive has catalogued 330bn web pages, 20m books and texts, 8.5m audio and video recordings, 3m images and 200,000 software programs. The most popular, public websites are prioritised, as are those that are commonly linked to. Some information is free to access, some is loaned out (if copyright laws apply) and some is only available to researchers. Curled up in a chair in his office after lunch, Mr Kahle lamented the combined impact of misinformation and how difficult it can be for ordinary people to access reliable sources of facts. "We're bringing up a generation that turns to their screens, without a library of information accessible via screens," said Mr Kahle. Some have taken advantage of this "new information system", he argued -- and the result is "Trump and Brexit." Having a free online library is crucial, said Mr Kahle, since "[the public is] just learning from whateverâ...âis easily available."
So far, the archive has catalogued 330bn web pages, 20m books and texts, 8.5m audio and video recordings, 3m images and 200,000 software programs. The most popular, public websites are prioritised, as are those that are commonly linked to. Some information is free to access, some is loaned out (if copyright laws apply) and some is only available to researchers. Curled up in a chair in his office after lunch, Mr Kahle lamented the combined impact of misinformation and how difficult it can be for ordinary people to access reliable sources of facts. "We're bringing up a generation that turns to their screens, without a library of information accessible via screens," said Mr Kahle. Some have taken advantage of this "new information system", he argued -- and the result is "Trump and Brexit." Having a free online library is crucial, said Mr Kahle, since "[the public is] just learning from whateverâ...âis easily available."
robots.txt is retroactive (Score:5, Interesting)
So how is it any different now? Will they finally stop the retroactive bullshit?
Re: (Score:3)
Unless they have a time machine, in which case it becomes possible to change the "was openly published" property of content that was openly published.
Everything has copyright attached to it at creation. "Openly published" is a meaningless concept. "Openly published" does not mean "public domain", and robots.txt changes nothing in that regard. I am surprised, and a bit unhappy, to hear that archive.org is charging money to provide access to certain parts of their archive -- in essence making money off of copyrighted works from others.
As to retroactive removal of things when a new domain owner comes along? Suppose you registered a domain that used to belo
Re: (Score:2)
Everything has copyright attached to it at creation. [..] archive.org is charging money to provide access to certain parts of their archive -- in essence making money off of copyrighted works from others.
US copyright law allows libraries and archives to reproduce and distribute certain copyrighted works without permission on a limited basis for the purposes of preservation, replacement, and research. The archive.org site further has a DMCA exception allowing it to break copy protection so that it may archive software.
Suppose you registered a domain that used to belong to, say, a white supremacist group, and there is a handy archive showing all the white supremacist propaganda published under your domain. Would you like that?
I would know that it relates to me just as the activities of the person from whom I bought my house relate to me. They actually fucked each other in my bedroom! That does not make me a rapist.
how many rabid anti-white supremacist zealots are going to worry about when it was published, only that YOU own the domain it was published under?
C
Re: (Score:2)
US copyright law allows libraries and archives to reproduce and distribute certain copyrighted works
For money? Can a library make copies of the book you've written and sell them without your permission?
I would know that it relates to me just as the activities of the person from whom I bought my house relate to me.
Of course the new owner of the domain would know he wasn't the actual source of the material being archived with his domain name attached. That's not the question. The question is how an arbitrary person searching the archive to root out white supremacist sources will know that the new domain owner did not publish the material originally. YOU know that the meth lab the former owner of your house ran isn't y
Re: (Score:2)
For money? Can a library make copies of the book you've written and sell them without your permission?
Yes. Here, why not read some: https://www.overdrive.com/ [overdrive.com]
The question is how an arbitrary person searching the archive to root out white supremacist sources will know that the new domain owner did not publish the material originally.
They would apply some intelligence and assure they don't make false accusations that could lead to an expensive defamation case in court.
YOU know that the meth lab the former owner of your house ran isn't your meth lab; convince the cops that the meth lab residues they find in your garage aren't yours.
I don't have to. They have to prove that they are.
"Pics or it didn't happen" argument?
Absolutely yes. Because it didn't fucking happen.
We cannot act to prevent easily foreseeable consequences of the trending social climate until really bad things happen to a lot of people?
We can. The correct act would be preventing this outrage culture from destroying the lives of innocent people. Get onto it.
I would say that if I own a domain name, and you are distributing (for money, in some cases) material that claims to have come from my domain, I have every right to tell you to stop. Whether the loss is material or not should be irrelevant.
I would say that it's perfectly legal and reasonable to accurately state that on a specific date
What accountability? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Comrade, the word you are looking for here is "staple." A stable is what a horse lives in.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he was nouning the heck out of that verb? Is that a new thing?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What accountability? (Score:5, Informative)
Fake news has been a stable of American history. See Tonkin incident in Vietnam to WMD in Iraq. Also I lol at causing $18m a year to run, I'd look at their accounting for accountability.
Remember the Maine!
Oh, you don't?
We went to war with Spain over the explosion of the USS Maine while she was swinging at anchor in Havana Bay.
The Truth was it was a coal bunker fire that set off a powder magazine.
But, our press, our filthy traitor yellow press, said it was the Spaniards' fault, so to war we went. That yellow press was mostly owned by a guy called William Hearst and his competitor, Joseph Pulitzer. THAT Pulitzer.
Think on that next time you people believe what CNN / MSNBC / WaPo / NYTimes / Vice / Motherboard / Buzzfeed / and that twat whose name I can't remember tells you.
Fucking traitors they are, the lot of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And FFS, it's STAPLE, not stable! Stable is where the horse lives.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So you get your news from "real" sources like Fox Propaganda, which is curiously missing from your list? Rupert Murdoch is as yellow a journalist as Hearst and Pulitzer ever were.
Re: (Score:2)
So you get your news from "real" sources like Fox Propaganda, which is curiously missing from your list? Rupert Murdoch is as yellow a journalist as Hearst and Pulitzer ever were.
Hey, someone has to push back against CNN et al.
Don't like it? Don't read it!
Re: (Score:2)
CNN quakes in its boots, deathly afraid that Fox Propaganda will call them liberals.
Re: (Score:1)
Thought Crime (Score:1, Informative)
Some have taken advantage of this "new information system", he argued -- and the result is "Trump and Brexit."
What a bunch of bullshit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Everything about Trump and Brexit is bullshit, so could you be more specific?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thought Crime (Score:4, Interesting)
Nations are a concept invented by humans. How is the relationship between the member states and the EU fundamentally any different from the US states and the federal government? It's fucking splitting hairs to say one is worthy of giving a shit about, while the other isn't. Too me, the major difference seems to be, the EU is fine letting idiots leave and fail on their own, while we here in the states will kill a fucker who tries that.
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe pretty much everything is rooted in many centuries of history, in centuries of war against each other and so forth. As a result the feeling of unity and the EU identity is perhaps not as strong among the majority of people as it is in the US. For example if you go around in the EU and ask people with what they identify with (as far as nations and so forth go) you won't encounter a lot of people that state they're European or
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, America should be dissolved back to the sovereign States, stupid that they gave up their sovereignty and united.
Re:Thought Crime (Score:5, Insightful)
We know this to be true.
In the case of brexit the crimes of Cambridge Analytica and the Vote Leave campaign are well documented. They abused Facebook data to target gullible people with misinformation and lies, such as the infamous one about Turkey joining the EU. They selected people they thought were unlikely to fact check and created personal bubbles for them.
And that's before you get to the more general misinformation campaigns like the one Boris Johnson presided over.
In Trump's case I think whatever side of the political spectrum you are on we can all at least agree that he has a strained relationship with the truth. In his case I'm not sure the Internet Archive can help that much - most of his based know that a lot of what he says is lies, but don't care. In the post-truth world they assume everyone lies all the time anyway.
Re:Thought Crime (Score:5, Informative)
Most people don't form their opinions from Facebook
Yes. That's why Cambridge Analytica carefully targeted the minority who do.
Re:Thought Crime (Score:5, Informative)
Most people don't form their opinions from Facebook
You don't have to mislead "most" people.
Brexit won with a margin of 3.8%.
Trump won with a margin of -2.1%.
Re: (Score:1)
and in both cases facebook didn't influence enough people to matter, that is absurd nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone with a brain knows it.
Some Democrat sees a Russian ad saying Trump will save him from the sodomites and their big dangerous penises, then immediately changes into a Republican.
Yeah right.
Re: (Score:3)
Elections are decided as much by convincing the other side to stay home and your side to vote as much as convincing the undecided.
Re: (Score:3)
The brexit margin was actually half that, because if 50%+1 of those voters changed their mind the result would have gone the other way.
So 1.89% or 634,133 votes out of 33.5 million would have swung it the other way.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump won the 2016 Presidential election by a vote of 304 to 227. That's considerably more than -2.1%.
Re:Thought Crime (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people don't form their opinions from Facebook; this may shock certain people who thinks the world revolves around social media.
Underestimating your enemy is a fatal flaw.
People form their opinions from social media, from the the "traditional" media, the preacher, the radio talk people, the liberal retard at the water cooler, the conservative retard at the coffeepot... ...but people as a whole do NOT think on their own.
This is the danger of the Maine incident, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and similar: people will do what the media tells them.
Re: (Score:2)
Media Matters/Shareblue. David Brock is the founding father of internet astroturf misinformation campaigns but for some reason his name is never mentioned when talking about it. His pioneering efforts laid the groundwork for the 2012 Obama campaign's use of targeted internet messaging that is credited for his reelection but still never mentioned either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a famous clip of Obama actually bragging about this, something like "we own the internet" from the pre-Trump era.
Re: (Score:1)
Media Matters/Shareblue. David Brock is the founding father of internet astroturf misinformation campaigns but for some reason his name is never mentioned when talking about it. His pioneering efforts laid the groundwork for the 2012 Obama campaign's use of targeted internet messaging that is credited for his reelection but still never mentioned either.
Pioneering my ass.
Cambridge analytica predecessor dates to 1990 and was funded by Thatcher specifically to "correct Eastern Europe". https://www.fagain.co.uk/node/... [fagain.co.uk] It just moved to the Internet later when the Internet appeared.
Obama first job was a CIA analyst (as an intern). 99%+ his was aware of this effort.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to say the same thing. There's an entire documentary about this exactly on Netflix, called "The Great Hack". Although I think Aaron Banks is threatening a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
We know this to be true.
So says the person that gaslights on /. about what a fine moral upstanding group Antifa is. "We" know that when it comes to politics, everything "true" according to some people is anything but.
In Trump's case, he's a product of the environment where the norm is "ends justify the means" in pursuit of power and self enrichment. Therefore lying is to be expected in order to succeed, and Trumps own most devoted critics make sure that the soil of mistruth is very well fertilized with endless amounts of bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So says the person that gaslights on /. about what a fine moral upstanding group Antifa is.
I don't know why you think this. I should say that we don't even have many of them in the UK but the ones we do have mostly seem to be decent people, just opposed to fascists. In the US seems to be more of them willing to get into fights or vandalize stuff, which of course only hurts the cause.
What I do find kinda funny is all the "commies everywhere" 1950s paranoia there is now. Someone was trying to tell me that Donald Trump and Boris Johnson where Communists the other day, right here on Slashdot. Meanwhi
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of commies, I remember when the Russians were being blamed for Brexit too. Even right after the story of the Rotherham rape gangs and the police scandal was finally too great to be ignored by the press and there were too many whistleblowers that they couldn't all be punished or silenced. To create a Russian scapegoat to explain anti-EU sentiment really took a lot of chutzpah.
And just like 2016 when almost the entirety of the media was negative against Trump, afterwards came the wise sages to say th
Re: (Score:2)
Have you read the Mueller Report? Is he a Communist?
Re: (Score:2)
Mueller a communist? I'm probably more of a commie than that deep state operative is, and not even nearly as likely as a leftist living in San Fran who wants to usurp an unchecked authority of preserving historical record.
I'm really glad for this article. To utter something so disingenuous as to say Trump and Brexit was only the result of devious misinformation campaigns, sets off a lot of alarm bells. Then for you to say "we know this to be true" was just the icing on the cake.
If the Internet Archive is go
Re: (Score:1)
They abused Facebook data to target gullible people
Things that had been pioneered by Obama years earlier. His campaign had its own social media program, complete with app and data collection. There are also various foreign entities doing the exact same things you complain about while pushing anti-Brexit propaganda. Yet the people who scream and whine about Trump and Brexit all day ignore these cases because it's "the right" ones doing it. You proclaim with absolute certainty to know what's "true". Thus ironically proving that "They selected people they th
Re: (Score:1)
We know this to be true.
In the case of brexit the crimes of Cambridge Analytica and the Vote Leave campaign are well documented.
Bollocks. Show me a single press publication which goes into detail on how Cambridge Analytica came to be and what were the assignments of its parent company SCL and the initial funding for it under the name of Behavioural Dynamics Institute. You are not going to find any. Guardian and all other newspapers avoid that topic like the plague.
Do you want to know why? Because it was specifically created for perversion of democracy in Eastern Europe after the fall of the wall to ensure that the newly emergent
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of brexit the crimes of Cambridge Analytica and the Vote Leave campaign are well documented
Comically although Vote Leave broke the law they were following guidance from the Electoral Commission, who have lost a case in court on exactly that matter.
They also broke the law by overspending on their campaign, with the overspend resulting in them spending nonetheless substantially less than the Remain campaigns spent, so it's hard to argue that their breach led to a material impact.
Meanwhile, multiple Remain campaigns broke the law. Perhaps you'd care to mention those too?
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing was a catastrofuck from start to finish.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's actually true. The new information system permits access to a far greater spread of information. Some of it is fake but some of it is pointing out the misrepresentations of the media and people in positions of power.
That's valuable and has led to a more informed populace, and is precisely why so many organisations are panicking and seeking to censor certain viewpoints. It's not because those viewpoints are less valid than others, it's because they don't conform with the mandated view.
Books (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
digital signatures (Score:3)
the only way short of putting it into print and then guarding the few remaining copies of the book.
Digitally sign it with a timestamp. if the encryption gets weak, you need a simple process of re-signing so it's ALL double signed before the previous method is broken... and done all on the same day with a timestamp. then you only need to trust the signer that they didn't fake the date and resign it. but you have to trust the library over somebody who went and rebinded an altered copy of a book... or in the
Re: (Score:2)
Cryptographic trusted timestamps. Which can be independently produced [bitcoinmagazine.com]. You can even make your own if you really don't trust whatever is available.
Of course, would be nice to find an assuredly post-quantum algorithm.
Re: (Score:2)
Is any of that worth doing just to show that someone is rewriting history in some sinister self serving way?
Re: (Score:1)
You can look it up in the Internet archive (in italian)
That did not fit the narrative and what the newspapers published under the wise direction of the Integrity Initiative so the police press release was promptly updated to ensure that it is ambiguous.
http
Either you're an archive or you're not (Score:4, Informative)
Either you're an archive or you're not. No, you can't delete shit you don't like and still claim to be an "archive". I'll make a narrow exception for illegal stuff like child porn and warez, but "fake news" needs to be archived as well. Otherwise the likes of CNN won't make it into the index.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, a key role archive.org and comparable sites play is demonstrating the fake news that was published, even where it has since been removed, hidden or (ideally) corrected.
The New York Times have done this in just the past week, libelling a prominent member of the judiciary on hearsay while explicitly omitting key facts that negate their entire story. They added those facts only after the initial publicity was over, thus many people will never have seen them.
It's a repeated pattern and sites like archiv
Phew. (Score:2)
> "We're bringing up a generation that turns to their screens, without a library of information accessible via screens," said Mr Kahle. Some have taken advantage of this "new information system", he argued -- and the result is "Trump and Brexit."
Thank goodness the person archiving the Internet isn't politically biased.
Re: (Score:2)
unless he's manipulating what he's archiving, does his bias matter?
i'm sure librarians have political bias as well (doesn't every person?).
archive.org is still one of the best sites around (Score:2)
The Internet Archive [archive.org] will host your ISOs of redistributable material, movies, texts, any kind of data in such a way that people can link directly to it. This makes IA totally compatible with the audio and video HTML5 elements and your audience doesn't have to visit a particular site to see/hear/read something, doesn't need a specialized viewer, or a specialized download program like youtube-dl [github.io] to get a copy of something; an ordinary right-click "Save link as..." will work. I'm grateful to all of the youtub
Liberal betters (Score:2)
Curled up in a chair in his office after lunch, Mr Kahle lamented the combined impact of misinformation and how difficult it can be for ordinary people to access reliable sources of facts. "We're bringing up a generation that turns to their screens, without a library of information accessible via screens," said Mr Kahle. Some have taken advantage of this "new information system", he argued -- and the result is "Trump and Brexit."
But I thought liberals think Internet Archive cannot be trusted because it can be fabricated [mediaite.com]?
How to spot fake news (Score:2)
Fake news is that which dares to speak ill of our Lord and Messiah, D*****d T***p.
Real news is that which sings his praises.