GonzoDeadHead t1_j1egdde wrote on December 23, 2022 at 6:28 PM

Reply to comment by GeoffreyArnold in The Internet Archive Documentary (2010) - [00:13:04] by paris5yrsandage

Knucklehead they did not refuse to provide the policy, they referred Faux news to previously published information - which is sited in the article you clearly did not fully read. Find a legitimate news source and stop going to that shit hole that has admitted in a court of law they are not news, but instead entertainment. Ass soon ass you link to that cesspool anyone with a clue is going to shut you down, or just walk away laughing.

From the article you linked:

“On the Wayback Machine's user guide, it says content owners who want their sites excluded from the service "can send an email request for us to review to info@archive.org with the URL (web address) in the text of your message."

In a 2002 forum exchange with users, the Internet Archive elaborated on its policy, writing, "While we collect publicly available Internet documents, sometimes authors and publishers express a desire for their documents not to be included in the Wayback Machine… If the author or publisher of some part of the Archive does not want his or her work in the Wayback Machine, then we may remove that portion from Wayback Machine without notice."

GeoffreyArnold t1_j1ei4r2 wrote on December 23, 2022 at 6:40 PM

> ". . . .If the author or publisher of some part of the Archive does not want his or her work in the Wayback Machine, then we may remove that portion from Wayback Machine without notice."

Listen, you smooth brained troglodyte, the company said "we may" but didn't provide their policy on how these decisions are made. This is clearly a Twitter type of issue in which they honor request for "certain types of folks". If you're a member of the propaganda elite, the answer is "yes". If you're a small-town working man, the answer is "no". If you're an Antifa thug, the answer is "yes". If you're a boy scout, the answer is "no".

GonzoDeadHead t1_j1eiq0m wrote on December 23, 2022 at 6:45 PM

Reading for comprehension champ - again from your own source see below. It’s funny how you right wing dill holes don’t consider the fact that private companies can have any fucking policy they want and don’t have to answer to you dim witted ass munchers.

During an interview with CNN's Brian Stelter, Lorenz defended her story as being newsworthy and that Libs of TikTok should be publicly identified.

"This woman is shaping the media ecosystem and shaping legislation and public discourse around legislation. She's also talked about mobilizing her base to run for local school boards and is collecting email lists, which 100% are going to be used for political purposes. So this is a political force. This is an influential media force. The idea that this woman is not newsworthy is quite nonsense," Lorenz said, adding, "we should scrutinize anyone that has power in this country, anyone that's influencing politics and legislation and public sentiment in the media."

GeoffreyArnold t1_j1ekrnb wrote on December 23, 2022 at 6:58 PM

> It’s funny how you right wing dill holes don’t consider the fact that private companies can have any fucking policy they want

You remember that as Elon continues to remake Twitter into a free speech platform. You leftist ball sacks hate nothing more than free speech and letting people express themselves how they see fit.

>During an interview with CNN's Brian Stelter,

The disgraced CNN anchor?

>Lorenz defended her story as being newsworthy and that Libs of TikTok should be publicly identified.

And what she said is completely ridiculous. This lady was a private citizen who did nothing but retweet publicly available tiktoks to amplify their reach. Meanwhile, Taylor Lorenz is a public figure who thinks that her public tweets shouldn't be archived. Can't you comprehend the irony of that?

GonzoDeadHead t1_j1elu0n wrote on December 23, 2022 at 7:06 PM

Elon and free speech is an oxymoron

Does it matter who they spoke to? Does the recipient somehow make a statement invalid?

No, because when you have a political agenda and are going out there spewing lies there is accountability. Similar to what is coming for your orange god.

Your false sense of reality and clear and obvious bias for bullshit are laughable, if not truly depressing for what little education you must have and no self esteem. Back to the basement dumbass.

Pleasant-Army2751 t1_j1f76ts wrote on December 23, 2022 at 9:36 PM

You're right actually. I just reread all of your comments and it turns out that all of these things that aren't explicitly said or even implied are actually very true. You have a real knack for inference and deduction and I hope to get there one day.

I see now that the Wayback machine is evil. Probably one of our greatest enemies as a society.

I say one of our greatest enemies because I think we can all agree our main enemy as a society today, aside from the regressive left as I like to call them, is short men, mostly short white men. They cause so many problems in every facet of day-to-day life for us "regulars" that I can't believe we still keep them around. They usually smell bad and just kind of give me the chills to look at. Sometimes I pass by a short man on the street and I just can't help but feel a need to build a big wall and put all of those little freaks on the other side of it. Almost always ugly and small-brained as well. I can't think of a group more deserving of civilization-wide ire than those tall babies. Their bodies are like those of toddlers but they demand the respect of adults and they don't even realize how absurd that is. Absolutely laughable

Sorry for ranting in this comment, I just can't help that I feel this way and so does every woman I know, and I know so many women. I'm sure you feel the same way, and a guy like you probably knows a lot of ladies who're in the same boat, am I right brother? Just loathsome tiny little dumpsters waddling around. Make my skin crawl. Yuck