Top
Best
New

Posted by sonicrocketman 7 hours ago

Keep Our Servers Running(blog.archive.org)
456 points | 100 commentspage 2
abeyer 5 hours ago|
"Keep running" is interesting phrasing, given that wayback has been serving me nothing but some mix of timeouts, 429 errors, and "Temporarily Offline" messages for weeks.
do_it_for_free 4 hours ago||
They have some positions posted on their job board. I would do this for free. They should adopt a volunteer workforce like the Redcross Code4Good Volunteer Enterprise Web Services team.

Senior Datacenter Network Infrastructure Engineer Full Time San Francisco, CA, US 30+ days ago Requisition ID: XXXX Salary Range: $140,000.00 To $200,000.00 Annually

aurareturn 2 hours ago|
Pick 2 out of 3 for these kinds of volunteer work:

- Capable

- Reliable

- Free

You going to be on call at 3am to bring services back up doing it for free?

egorfine 2 hours ago||
> You going to be on call at 3am to bring services back up doing it for free?

Yes. For the Internet Archive I totally would. As responsible as I do my main job.

aurareturn 2 hours ago||
You should definitely apply and sign a contract. They should charge you money if you don't show up at 3am in an outage.

All it takes is one emergency and the volunteer person doesn't show up for the non profit to want to hire a full time person. This event has likely already occurred at Archive.

foo42 5 hours ago||
Internet Archive feels like an important... well, archive, yet I often worry about the load, financial and potentially political, which is put on it when people use it as a workaround for pay-walls, as is often advocated on HN
mr_mitm 3 hours ago|
That's a different archive
warpech 3 hours ago||
Umm, no? The parent means Wayback Machine, which is a service of Internet Archive (both at archive.org). Or am I confused?
mr_mitm 3 hours ago||
The archive that bypasses paywalls is archive.today (or archive.is, archive.ph, ...) which is run by some shady person, not a professional organization like Wayback Machine.
xyst 2 hours ago||
Why can’t these wealthy donors funding the "match" just pay a lump sum? Why make IA and other non profits jump through hoops to get the full amount?
loeg 2 hours ago|
(They do. The "matching" is just a fundraising gimmick; essentially a lie.)
spiderfarmer 4 hours ago||
They should ask the AI scraping companies for donations.
akudha 6 hours ago||
How do they handle AI slop? If they index AI generated articles, it is just not sustainable, right?
crewman9 6 hours ago||
Yeah, _no_

Shut ClimateGPT down, apologize and then we can talk about donation.

LastTrain 6 hours ago||
That is Internet Archive Europe, which is independent from Internet Archive
eru 6 hours ago|||
Interesting. How is ClimateGPT linked to archive.org, and why do you object to it?
kalleboo 6 hours ago|||
They're probably reacting to this

https://mastodon.archive.org/@internetarchive/11721950124572...

https://erasmus.ai/?p=875

stonogo 6 hours ago|||
ClimateGPT is built by Erasmus.AI, which says "Built by Erasmus.AI on behalf of the ClimateGPT Foundation, and supported by the Internet Archive Europe,".

Brewster Kahle, Internet Archive founder (and board chair), is on the board of Erasmus.AI.

It does seem weird to rattle the donation box because hosting costs are going up while shooting money at the prime cause of hosting costs going up.

LastTrain 6 hours ago||
They are independent organizations with separate funding.
crewman9 5 hours ago|||
then why did the main IA account post about this https://mastodon.archive.org/@internetarchive/11721950124572...

and it's darkly funny how HN downvotes this when every single answer on Mastodon is incredibly negative

tadfisher 5 hours ago|||
It's not funny at all, it's deeply alarming. I'm in the wrong bar.
GaryBluto 5 hours ago|||
> and it's darkly funny how HN downvotes this when every single answer on Mastodon is incredibly negative

Mastodon is full of, for the lack of a better word, nuts. Every time I've had the displeasurable experience of clinking a link and seeing that dark violet colour cover my screen I know I'm in for either adults who never matured past their early teenage years or ideological hyperpartisanism, and within five seconds my prejudices are confirmed. Social media doesn't magically fill with rational people the moment you "fix" the infrastructure.

stonogo 5 hours ago|||
Brewster Kahle is on IA Europe's board as well (with Daniel Erasmus, whose baby is Erasmus.AI).

I'm sure they have separate bank accounts, but let's not pretend these organizations are independent. They're all run by the same little club of friends.

RileyJames 6 hours ago||
What should archive.org apologise for in this regard?
TekMol 5 hours ago|
I still don't get how copying copyrighted content to your own website and then asking for donations can be a legal business model. Nor how it can be morally justified.

I get that many people like such an archive to be around for consumption. Me too. But, keeping emotions aside, I can't find a justification to violate the rights of creators.

I'm sure many people here will have the knee-jerk reaction to immediately downvote this question. But I know there are also thoughtful people on HN. If some of you have ideas about the legal and moral justification for archive.org's actions, I would like to hear them.

neilwilson 4 hours ago||
Copyright is a legal grant from the public to the individual.

Perhaps it is time to recognise that this literal Mickey Mouse law needs to be rebalanced more in favour of the public than the monopolist, as that creates better societal outcomes.

pjc50 1 hour ago|||
The legal justification is that it's a library. This does actually seem to work for them in general, although they badly overstepped with books and lost in court.

Any creator-based outrage should be directed first and foremost at the for-profit violations by AI companies, rather than the small volunteer service which is keeping history up.

Ultimately there is no archiving without piracy. The alternative is for the web to exist in an eternal present where everything vanishes the moment some business decides it's not worth it or conflicts with current corporate values.

hk__2 1 hour ago|||
It’s a non-profit that archives publicly-accessible content. If it were a for-profit (Google snippets, LLMs) I’d understand your question, but since it doesn’t profit from it I don’t see the issue.
spider-mario 2 hours ago||
“your own website and then asking for donations […] business model” make it sound as if it’s for profit, which it isn’t.