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.
pgwhalen • 6 hours ago
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]".
Chris2048 • 5 hours ago
Yes, I didn't realize this was a very legally questionable practice, let alone clearly. Can you explain why?
xhkkffbf • 4 hours ago
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.
xhkkffbf • 5 hours ago
Large downsides? How about the news sources going bankrupt? Someone has to pay for reporters.
rouslyrunn • 6 hours ago
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
sidewndr46 • 6 hours ago
didn't google try this with AMP or whatever? It wasn't very popular
appreciatorBus • 6 hours ago
One large downside is that publishers whose paywalls are being circumvented by the act of submitting to HN, would consider legal action against HN.
ompogUe • 4 days ago
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 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.
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.
Large downsides? How about the news sources going bankrupt? Someone has to pay for reporters.
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
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.