So instead of scraping IA once, the AI companies will use residential proxies and each scrape the site themselves, costing the news sites even more money. The only real loser is the common man who doesn't have the resources to scrape the entire web himself.<p>I've sometimes dreamed of a web where every resource is tied to a hash, which can be rehosted by third parties, making archival transparent. This would also make it trivial to stand up a small website without worrying about it get hug-of-deathed, since others would rehost your content for you. Shame IPFS never went anywhere.
The AI companies won't just scrape IA once, they're keeping come back to the same pages and scraping them over and over. Even if nothing has changed.<p>This is from my experience having a personal website. AI companies keep coming back even if everything is the same.
Weird, considering IA has most of its content in a way you could rehost it all idk why nobody’s just hosting a IA carbon copy that AI companies can hit endlessly, and then cutting IA a nice little check in the process, but I guess some of the wealthiest AI startups are very frugal about training data?<p>This also goes back to something I said long ago, AI companies are relearning software engineering poorly. I can think of so many ways to speed up AI crawlers, im surprised someone being paid 5x my salary cannot.
Unless regulated, there is no incentive for the giants to fund anything.
That already exists, it's called Common Crawl[1], and it's a huge reason why none of this happened prior to LLMs coming on the scene, back when people were crawling data for specialized search engines or academic research purposes.<p>The problem is that AI companies have decided that they want instant access to all data on Earth the moment that it becomes available somewhere, and have the infrastructure behind them to actually try and make that happen. So they're ignoring signals like robots.txt or even checking whether the data is actually useful to them (they're not getting anything helpful out of recrawling the same search results pagination in every possible permutation, but that won't stop them from trying, and knocking everyone's web servers offline in the process) like even the most aggressive search engine crawlers did, and are just bombarding every single publicly reachable server with requests on the off chance that some new data fragment becomes available and they can ingest it first.<p>This is also, coincidentally, why Anubis is working so well. Anubis kind of sucks, and in a sane world where these companies had real engineers working on the problem, they could bypass it on every website in just a few hours by precomputing tokens.[2] But...they're not. Anubis is actually working quite well at protecting the sites it's deployed on despite its relative simplicity.<p>It really does seem to indicate that LLM companies want to just throw endless hardware at literally any problem they encounter and brute force their way past it. They really aren't dedicating real engineering resources towards any of this stuff, because if they were, they'd be coming up with way better solutions. (Another classic example is Claude Code apparently using <i>React</i> to render a terminal interface. That's like using the space shuttle for a grocery run: utterly unnecessary, and completely solvable.) That's why DeepSeek was treated like an existential threat when it first dropped: they actually got some engineers working on these problems, and made serious headway with very little capital expenditure compared to the big firms. Of course they started freaking out, their whole business model is based on the idea that burning comical amounts of money on hardware is the only way we can actually make this stuff work!<p>The whole business model backing LLMs right now seems to be "if we burn insane amounts of money now, we can replace <i>all labor everywhere</i> with robots in like a decade", but if it turns out that either of those things aren't true (either the tech can be improved without burning hundreds of billions of dollars, or the tech ends up being unable to replace the vast majority of workers) all of this is going to fall apart.<p>Their approach to crawling is just a microcosm of the whole industry right now.<p>[1]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Crawl" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Crawl</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://fxgn.dev/blog/anubis/" rel="nofollow">https://fxgn.dev/blog/anubis/</a> and related HN discussion <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45787775">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45787775</a>
Thanks for the mention of Common Crawl. We do respect robots.txt and we publish an opt-out list, due to the large number of publishers asking to opt out recently.<p>There's a bit of discussion of Common Crawl in Jeff Jarvis's testimony before Congress: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX26ijBQs2k" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX26ijBQs2k</a>
So perhaps the AI companies will go bankrupt and then this madness will stop. But it would be nice if no government intervenes because they are "too big to fail".
yeah, they should really have a think about how their behavior is harming their future prospects here.<p>Just because you have infinite money to spend on training doesn't mean you should saturate the internet with bots looking for content with no constraints - even if that is a rounding error of your cost.<p>We just put heavy constraints on our public sites blocking AI access. Not because we mind AI having access - but because we can't accept the abusive way they execute that access.
Something I’ve noticed about technology companies, and it’s bled into just about every facet of the US these days, is the consideration of if an action *can* be executed upon vs *should* an action be executed upon.<p>It’s very unfortunate and a short sighted way to operate.
This is a fundamental shift that's been happening for a while, but AI accelerated it dramatically. The irony is that AI companies complain about lack of quality data while simultaneously burning through the open web with reckless crawling - degrading the very ecosystem they depend on. There's no incentive to invest in quality when you can just scrape everything at scale. The companies that will win are those treating this as a long-term relationship with publishers, not a extraction problem.
The main issue is a well behaved AI company won't be singled out for continued access, they will all be hit by public sites blocking AI access. So there is no benefit to them behaving.
Honestly, has any of these AI companies ever offered a compensation for the data they pillage, except in case of large walled up information silos like reddit? This is like asking why the occasional burglars are not singled out for direct access into your house, compared to the stripmining marauders out there.<p>Why does any of them deserve any special treatment? Please don't try to normalize this reprehensible behavior. It's a greedy, exploitative and lawless behavior, no matter how much they downplay it or how long they've been doing it.
Why should a well-behaved AI company be singled out for continued access? If the industry can't regulate itself then none deserve access no matter if they're "well-behaved".<p>Receiving a response from someone's webserver is a privilege, not a right.
This is just tragedy of the commons.
> The AI companies won't just scrape IA once, they're keeping come back to the same pages and scraping them over and over. Even if nothing has changed.<p>Why, though? Especially if the pages are new; aren't they concerned about ingesting AI-generated content?
Possibly because a lot of “AI-company scraping” isn't traditional scraping (e.g., to build a dataset of the state at a particular point in time), its referencing the current content of the page as grounding for the response to a user request.
> The AI companies won't just scrape IA once, they're keeping come back to the same pages and scraping them over and over. Even if nothing has changed.<p>Maybe they vibecoded the crawlers. I wish I were joking.
IPFS was an attempt at this: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterPlanetary_File_System" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterPlanetary_File_System</a>
> I've sometimes dreamed of a web where every resource is tied to a hash, which can be rehosted by third parties, making archival transparent. This would also make it trivial to stand up a small website without worrying about it get hug-of-deathed, since others would rehost your content for you. Shame IPFS never went anywhere.<p>You've just described Nostr: Content that is tied to a hash (so its origin and authenticity can be verified) that is hosted by third parties (or yourself if you want)
With Nostr you can host your content anywhere, but for it to actually be discoverable, you need to declare that host. Third parties therefore cannot really solve the problem for you, without your help.
They already are, I've been dealing with Vietnam and Korea residential proxies destroying my systems for weeks, I'm growing tired. I cannot survive 3500 RPS 24/7.
>The only real loser is the common man who doesn't have the resources to scrape the entire web himself.<p>definitely, this is going to hurt those over at /r/datahoarder
> I've sometimes dreamed of a web where every resource is tied to a hash, which can be rehosted by third parties, making archival transparent.<p>I wrote a short paper on that 25 years ago, but it went nowhere. I still think it is a great idea!
> So instead of scraping IA once, the AI companies will use residential proxies and each scrape the site themselves, costing the news sites even more money.<p>News websites aren’t like those labyrinthian cgit hosted websites that get crushed under scrapers. If 1,000 different AI scrapers hit a news website every hour it wouldn’t even make a blip on the traffic logs.<p>Also, AI companies are already scraping these websites directly in their own architecture. It’s how they try to stay relevant and fresh.
I don’t believe resips will be with us for long, at least not to the extent they are now. There is pressure and there are strong commercial interests against the whole thing. I think the problem will solve itself in some part.<p>Also, I always wonder about Common Crawl:<p>Is there is something wrong with it? Is it badly designed? What is it that all the trainers cannot find there so they need to crawl our sites over and over again for the exact same stuff, each on its own?
Many AI projects in academia or research get all of their web data from Common Crawl -- in addition to many not-AI usages of our dataset.<p>The folks who crawl more appear to mostly be folks who are doing grounding or RAG, and also AI companies who think that they can build a better foundational model by going big. We recommend that all of these folks respect robots.txt and rate limits.
Thank you!<p>> The folks who crawl more appear to mostly be folks who are doing grounding or RAG, and also AI companies who think that they can build a better foundational model by going big.<p>But how can they aspire to do any of that if they cannot build a basic bot?<p>My case, which I know is the same for many people:<p>My content is updated infrequently. Common Crawl must have all of it. I do not block Common Crawl, and I see it (the genuine one from the published ranges; not the fakes) visiting frequently. Yet the LLM bots hit the same URLs all the time, multiple times a day.<p>I plan to start blocking more of them, even the <i>User</i> and <i>Search</i> variants. The situation is becoming absurd.
AI companies are _already_ funding and using residential proxies. Guess how much of those proxies are acquired through being compromised or tricking people into installing apps?
Even if the site is archived on IA, AI companies will still do the same.
But don't you have to sign a license agreement that prohibits scraping in order to purchase a subscription that allows you to bypass the paywall?
Blocking the internet archive sounds like non-tech leadership making decisions without understanding how ubiquitous and moot it is to simply get it another way.<p>Kind of sucks because the news are an important part of that kind of an archive.
It's almost as if this isn't about scraping and more about shutting down a "free article sharing" channel that gets abused all the time.
AI browsers will be the scrapers, shipping content back to the mothership for processing and storage as users co browse with the agentic browser.
But hey, paywalled sites might be getting 2-3 additional subscriptions out of it!
We don’t lack the technology to limit scrapers, sure it’s an arms race with AI companies with more money than most. Why can’t this be a legal block through TOS
I maintain an open-source project called Linkwarden and this exact discussion is one of the reasons why it exists, teams needed a way to preserve referenced URLs reliably without having to depend on external services.<p>It stores webpages in multiple formats (HTML snapshot, screenshot, PDF snapshot, and a fully dedicated reader view) so you’re not relying on a single fragile archive method.<p>There’s both a hosted cloud plan [1] which directly supports the project, and a fully self-hosted option [2], depending on how much control you need over storage and retention.<p>[1]: <a href="https://linkwarden.app" rel="nofollow">https://linkwarden.app</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://github.com/linkwarden/linkwarden" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/linkwarden/linkwarden</a>
Linkwarden is awesome and with the singlefile extension it's pretty easy to store things you can see but the scraper gets blocked on.<p>One question, what's your stance on adding a way to mark articles as read or "archive" them like other apps that are branded a bit more as storing things to read later. You can technically do something similar with tags but it's a bit clunky of a UX.
Thanks! At the moment we’re focused on archiving rather than read-later workflows, but this is great feedback. I’ve already added it to the feature requests list.
Archival is one side of the coin, but consumption as-in read-later is very important as well.<p>I am currently evaluating Linkwarden, Wallabag, Hoarder, Linkding and each of the services has pro and cons making it hard for me to choose one. Linkwarden is AWESOME in its way to store content in multiple formats, but the read-later wfs could be improved.<p>Without checking again: does Linkwarden sync reading location across devices and automatically scrolls to that location on the next device? Does it tell me how „long“ an article takes to read (solely based on the length of it)? Does Linkding support marking up text and persist (mark some text yellow and see those marks somewhere or even add comments or favorite specific parts of texts).<p>No need to answer any of the questions, I can research myself, just putting these out there for a read-later solution I would like. Add a link on my mobile device, Linkwarden could do its magic in the backend, and I check out the content later on desktop or even on my mobile device.
> with the singlefile extension it's pretty easy to store things you can see but the scraper gets blocked on<p>FWIW, at least on iOS, it's possible to inject Javascript into the web site being currently displayed by Safari as a side effect of sharing a web link to an app via the share sheet.<p>Several "read it later" style apps use this successfully to get around paywalls (assuming you've paid yourself) and other robot blockers. Any plans for Linkwarden to do this (or does it already)?
I literally just came across and installed your project on my server today. It's fantastic and with it I was able to cancel my readwise subscription. Great work!
Neat. How does the archive.org integration works?<p>Does it just POST the url to them for them to fetch? Or is there any integration/trust to store what you already fetched on the client directly on their archives?
It affects science too (and there you'd want solid archiving as much as possible). Increasingly, meta-data is full of errors and general purpose search engines for science are breaking down, including even things like Google Scholar. I suppose some big science publishers are blocking AI bots too.
Google ruined its own search engine on top of that as well though.<p>We are increasingly becoming blind. To me it looks as if this is done on purpose actually.
Did Google ruin it, or did advesarial activity between Google's algorithm and SEO ruin it? The latter seems more likely because the incentives make sense, and also inevitable.
It was. Advertising is incompatible with accurate data retrieval/routing. We've also implemented "obligation to deindex". So providing an unbiased index of the web as she is is essentially (in the U.S.) verboten.
> I suppose some big science publishers are blocking AI bots too.<p>That's a travesty, considering that a huge chunk of science is public-funded; the public is being denied the benefits of what they're paying for, essentially.
Thank god for pubmed and deterministic search operators.
[dead]
Publishers like The Guardian and NYT are blocking the IA/Wayback Machine. 20% of news websites are blocking both IA and Common Crawl. As an example, <a href="https://www.realtor.com/news/celebrity-real-estate/james-van-der-beek-texas-spicewood-ranch-sale-kids-wife/" rel="nofollow">https://www.realtor.com/news/celebrity-real-estate/james-van...</a> is unarchivable, with IA being 429ed while the site is accessible otherwise.
And whilst the IA will honour requests not to archive/index, more aggressive scrapers won't, and will disguise their traffic as normal human browser traffic.<p>So we're basically decided we only want bad actors to be able to scrape, archive, and index.
> <i>we're basically decided we only want bad actors to be able to scrape, archive, and index</i><p>AI training will be hard to police. But a lot of these sites inject ads in exchange for paywall circumvention. Just scanning Reddit for the newest archive.is or whatever should cut off most of the traffic.
Presumably someone has already built this and I'm just unaware of it, but I've long thought some sort of crowd sourced archival effort via browser extension should exist. I'm not sure how such an extension would avoid archiving privileged data though.
That 20% number is for a limited list of relatively large news websites. If you include the long tail of news, the % of blocking is much smaller.
I'm part of that small but (hopefully) growing percentage, because Common Crawl is a deeply dishonest front for AI data scraping. Quoting Wikipedia:<p>"""
In November 2025, an investigation by technology journalist Alex Reisner for The Atlantic revealed that Common Crawl lied when it claimed it respected paywalls in its scraping and requests from publishers to have their content removed from its databases. It included misleading results in the public search function on its website that showed no entries for websites that had requested their archives be removed, when in fact those sites were still included in its scrapes used by AI companies.
"""<p>My site is CC-BY-NC-SA, i.e. non-commercial and with attribution, and Common Crawl took a dubious position on whether fair use makes that irrelevant. They can burn.
Did you see our reply? <a href="https://commoncrawl.org/blog/setting-the-record-straight-common-crawls-commitment-to-transparency-fair-use-and-the-public-good" rel="nofollow">https://commoncrawl.org/blog/setting-the-record-straight-com...</a><p>Also, if your site has CC-BY-NC-SA markings, we have preserved them.
Oh, and thanks for letting me know that I need to add our reply to Wikipedia.
Can you give a reference for The Guardian blocking IA? I just checked with an article from today - already archived, and a manual re-archive worked.
Time for a crowd source plugin that relays copies of what individuals view right from the browser.<p>Users control what sites they want to allow it to record so no privacy worries, especially assuming the plugin is open source.<p>No automated crawling. The plugin does not drive the users browser to fetch things. Just whatever a user happens to actually view on their own, some percentage of those views from the activated domains gets submitted up to some archive.<p>Not every view, just like maybe 100 people each submit 1% of views, and maybe it's a random selection or maybe it's weighted by some feedback mechanism where the archive destination can say "Hey if the user views this particular url, I still don't have that one yet so definitely send that one if you see it rather than just applying the normal random chance"<p>Not sure how to protect the archive itself or it's operators.
SingleFile does the archiving fairly well.<p>> no privacy worries<p>This is harder than you might expect. Publishing these files is always risky because sites can serve you fingerprinting data, like some hidden HTML tag containing your IP and other identifiers.
collecting from multiple sources to find and scrub out the differences may make fingerprinting somewhat ineffective ?
>SingleFile does the archiving fairly well.<p>As does Tranquility Reader, if you're interested only in the primary content of the page ... and, usually, in a much smaller footprint ... with a PDF option.
oof good point
For a historical archive, the issue with this is that it could be difficult to ensure that the data being sent from users' devices wasn't modified in some way, leading to an inaccurate archival copy.
Cross-reference. When a site is archived by one client (who visited it directly), request a couple other clients to archive it (who didn’t visit it directly, instead chosen at random, to ensure the same user isn’t controlling all clients).
I feel like a government funded search engine would resolve a lot of the issues with the monetized web.<p>The purpose of a search engine is to display links to web pages, not the entire content. As such, it can be argued it falls under fair use. It provides value to the people searching for content and those providing it.<p>However we left such a crucially important public utility in the hands of private companies, that changed their algorythms many times in order to maximize their profits and not the public good.<p>I think there needs to be real competition, and I am increasingly becoming certain that the government should be part of that competition.
Both "private" companies and "public" governement are biased, but are biased in different ways, and I think there is real value to be created in this clash. It makes it easier for individuals to pick and choose the best option for themselves, and for third independent options to be developed.<p>The current cycle of knowledge generation is academia doing foundational research -> private companies expanding this research and monetizing it -> nothing. If the last step was expanded to the government providing a barebones but useable service to commodotize it, years after private companies have been able to reap immense profits, then the capabilities of the entire society are increased. If the last step is prevented, then the ruling companies turn to rentseeking and sitting on their lawrels, turn from innovating to extracting.
> However we left such a crucially important public utility in the hands of private companies, that changed their algorythms many times in order to maximize their profits and not the public good.<p>No one "left" a crucially important public utility in the hands of private companies. Private companies developed the search engine themselves in the late 90s in the course of doing for-profit business; and because some of them ended up being successful (most notably Google), most people using the internet today take the availability of search engines for granted.
The government having the power to curate access to information seems bad. You could try to separate it as an independent agency, but as the current US administration is showing, that’s not really a thing.
And in a world where running a Google-like search engine is just one of the many jobs the US federal government has, why shouldn't how the government runs that search engine be a national-level political question decided by elections, just like the management of all the other things the US federal government does is? Regardless of how the government curated access to information, a huge chunk of the US electorate would be mad about how they were doing it, reflecting very real polarization among the population.
The idea is that the government is biased towards hiding certain information and private companies are biased towards hiding a different set.<p>While unlikely, the ideal would be for the government to provide a foundational open search infrastructure that would allow people to build on it and expand it to fit their needs in a way that is hard to do when a private companies eschews competition and hides its techniques.<p>Perhaps it would be better for there to be a sanctioned crawler funded by the government, that then sells the unfiltered information to third parties like google. This would ensure IP rights are protected while ensuring open access to information.
We can start by forcing sites to treat crawlers equally. Google's main moat is less physical infrastructure or the algorithms, and more that sites allow only Google to scrape and index them.<p>They can charge money for access or disallow all scrapers, but it should not be allowed to selectively allow only Google.
I'm feeling it. Addressing the other reply: zero moderation or curation, and zero shielding from the crawler, if what you've posted is on a public network. Yes, users will be able to access anything they can think of. And the government will know. I think you don't have to worry about them censoring content; they'll be perfectly happy to know who's searching for CSAM or bomb-making materials. And if people have an issue with what the government does with this information (for example, charging people who search for things the Tangerine-in-Chief doesn't want you to see), you stop it at the point of prosecution, not data access. (This does only work in a society with a functioning democracy... but free information access is also what enables that. As Americans, with our red-hot American blood, do we dare?)
I wonder if these publishers would be more amenable to a private archiver that only serves registered academic / journalistic research projects (the way most physical private archives do), with a specific provision to never provide data to companies that would resell it or use it for training of generative models.
They already have archives with online and printed articles which they license to libraries, because the libraries take care of rate limiting and limiting abuse.
They probably have internal archives if they're smart; but that isn't accessible to the public. I think the issue isn't whether the data is archived, but whether that information is available to the public for the foreseeable future.
They sure have archives of the newspapers, they're <i>much</i> less likely to have archives of what they publish online.<p>And a local archive is one fire, business decision, poor technical choice etc away from getting permanently lost
Yes. Most publishers already do syndication deals. This is a fine idea.<p>The problem with the LLMs is they capture the value chain and give back nothing. It didn’t have to be this way. It still doesn’t.
The silver lining is that it's increasingly not worth being archived as well.
We really lucked out existing at a time when the internet was a place for weirdos and enthusiasts. I think those days are well and done.
The internet can't simultaneously be a place for weirdos and enthusiasts, and a vital part of the economy that everyone uses for a huge number of disparate things in daily life. <i>Parts</i> of the internet can be places for weirdos and enthusiasts, but spaces that cater to weirdos and enthusiasts are by necessity not popular or viral spaces.
Agreed. It’s mostly just disposable clickbait masquerading as journalism at this point. Outside of feeding people's FOMO, there's little content worth preserving for history.
Isn't the real problem here the unscrupulous AI scrapers? These sites want to be paid for their content to be used for AI training, if this same content is scraped by the Internet Archive the AI companies can get the content for free.<p>It's unfortunate that this undermines the usefulness of the Internet Archive, I don't see an alternative. IMHO, we'll soon see these AI scrapers cease to advertise themselves leading to sites like the NY Times trying to blacklist IP ranges as this battle continues. Fun times ahead!
My first impression is that news companies don't want their content scraped for copyright reasons, and roundaboutly scapegoating AI
As a website owner I hate the fact that more than 90% of my traffic is now bots, fake bots, bots masquerading as real visitors and real visitors who try try to use my platform to spam others.<p>Now AI companies are using residential proxies to get around the obvious countermeasures, I have resorted to blocking all countries that are not my target audience.<p>It really sucks. The internet is terminally ill.
> The Financial Times, for example, blocks any bot that tries to scrape its paywalled content, including bots from OpenAI, Anthropic, Perplexity, and the Internet Archive<p>But then it was not really open content anyway.<p>> When asked about The Guardian’s decision, Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle said that “if publishers limit libraries, like the Internet Archive, then the public will have less access to the historical record.”<p>Well - we need something like wikipedia for news content. Perhaps not 100% wikipedia; instead, wikipedia to store the hard facts, with tons of verification; and a news editorial that focuses on free content but in a newspaper-style, e. g. with professional (or good) writers. I don't know how the model could work, but IF we could come up with this then newspapers who have gatewalls to information would become less relevant automatically. That way we win long-term, as the paid gatewalls aren't really part of the open web anyway.
Wikipedia relies on the institutional structure of journalism, with newsroom independence, journalistic standards, educational system and probably a ton of other dependencies.<p>Journalism as an institution is under attack because the traditional source of funding - reader subscriptions to papers - no longer works.<p>To replicate the Wikipedia model would need to replicate the structure of Journalism for it to be reliable. Where would the funding for that come from? It's a tough situation.
> Well - we need something like wikipedia for news content.<p>The Wikipedia folks had their own Wikinews project which is essentially on hold today because maintenance in a wiki format is just too hard for that kind of uber-ephemeral content. Instead, major news with true long-term relevance just get Wikipedia articles, and the ephemera are ignored.
> we need something like wikipedia for news content<p>Interesting idea. It could be something that archives first and releases at a later date, when the news aren't as much new
> <i>it was not really open content anyway</i><p>Practically no quality journalism is.<p>> <i>we need something like wikipedia for news</i><p>Wikipedia editors aren’t flying into war zones.
Well, and it would be considered "original research" anyway which some admin would revert.
Original reporting is allowed and encouraged by the Wikimedia Foundation sister org Wikinews, which may be cited by Wikipedia.<p><a href="https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting</a>
Statistically, at least a few of them live in war zones. And I'm sure some of them would fly in to collect data if you paid them for it.
> <i>at least a few of them live in war zones</i><p>Which is a valuable perspective. But it's not a subsitute for a seasoned war journalist who can draw on global experience. (And relating that perspective to a particular home market.)<p>> <i>I'm sure some of them would fly in to collect data if you paid them for it</i><p>Sure. That isn't "a news editorial that focuses on free content but in a newspaper-style, e. g. with professional (or good) writers."<p>One part of the population imagines journalists as writers. They're fine on free, ad-supported content. The other part understands that investigation is not only resource intensive, but also requires rare talent and courage. That part generally pays for its news.<p>Between the two, a Wikipedia-style journalistic resource is not entertaining enough for the former and not informative enough for the latter. (Importantly, compiling an encyclopedia <i>is</i> principally the work of research and writing. You can be a fine Wikipedia–or scientific journal or newspaper–editor without leaving your room.)
Those roles seem to be diverging:<p>- crowdsourced data, eg, photos of airplane crashes<p>- people who live in an area start vlogs<p>- independent correspondents travel there to interview, eg Ukraine or Israel<p>We see that our best war reporting comes from analyst groups who ingest that data from the “firehose” of social media. Sometimes at a few levels, eg, in Ukraine the best coverage is people who compare the work of multiple groups mapping social media reports of combat. You have on top of that punditry about what various movements mean for the war.<p>So we don’t have “journalist”:<p>- we have raw data (eg, photos)<p>- we have first hand accounts, self-reported<p>- we have interviewers (of a few kinds)<p>- we have analysts who compile the above into meaningful intelligence<p>- we have anchors and pundits who report on the above to tell us narratives<p>The fundamental change is that what used to be several roles within a new agency are now independent contractors online. But that was always the case in secret — eg, many interviewers were contracted talent. We’re just seeing the pieces explicitly and without centralized editorial control.<p>So I tend not to catastrophize as much, because this to me is what the internet always does:<p>- route information flows around censorship<p>- disintermediate consumers from producers when the middle layer provides a net negative<p>As always in business, evolve or die. And traditional media has the same problem you outline:<p>- not entertaining enough for the celebrity gossip crowd<p>- too slow and compromised by institutional biases for the analyst crowd, eg, compare WillyOAM coverage of Ukraine to NYT coverage<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/@willyOAM" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/@willyOAM</a>
> a news editorial that focuses on free content but in a newspaper-style<p>Isn't that what state funded news outlets are?
Proposed solution:<p>Sell a "truck full of DAT tapes" type service to AI scrapers with snapshots of the IA. Sort of like the cloud providers have with "Data Boxes".<p>It will fund IA, be cheaper than building and maintaining so many scrapers, and may relieve the pressure on these news sites.
Even sites with that option already (like wikipedia) still report being hammered by scrapers. It's the full-funded aligned with the incompetent at work here.
IA has always been in legal jeopardy without offering paid access. For that to work we need to get rid of copyright first.
Or offer it in countries with lax copyright. The industry will find ways to work around it.<p>But - as another poster pointed out - Wikipedia offers this, and still gets hammered by scrapers. Why buy when free, I guess?
There's a mundane version of this that hits small businesses every day. Platform terms of service pages, API documentation, pricing policies, even the terms you agreed to when you signed up for a SaaS product - these all live at URLs that change or vanish.<p>I've been building tools that integrate with accounting platforms and the number of times a platform's API docs or published rate limits have simply disappeared between when I built something and when a user reports it broken is genuinely frustrating. You can't file a support ticket saying "your docs said X" when the docs no longer say anything because they've been restructured.<p>For compliance specifically - HMRC guidance in the UK changes constantly, and the old versions are often just gone. If you made a business decision based on published guidance that later changes, good luck proving what the guidance actually said at the time. The Wayback Machine has saved me more than once trying to verify what a platform's published API behaviour was supposed to be versus what it actually does.<p>The SOC 2 / audit trail point upthread is spot on. I'd add that for smaller businesses, it's not just formal compliance frameworks - it's basic record keeping. When your payment processor's fee schedule was a webpage instead of a PDF and that webpage no longer exists, you can't reconcile why your fees changed.
Framing this as some anti-AI thing is wild. The simpler, more obvious, and more evidenced reason for this is that these sites want to make money with ads and paywalls that an archived copy tends to omit by design. Scapegoating AI lets them pretend that they're not the greedy bad guys here — just like how the agricultural sector is hell-bent on scapegoating AI (and lawns, and golf courses, and long showers, and free water at restaurants) for excess water consumption when even the worst-offending datacenters consume infinitesimally-tiny fractions of the water farms in their areas consume.
Yeah I assume what the news publishers actually care about is the thing where, when someone posts a paywalled news article on hacker news, one of the first comments is invariably a link to an archive site that bypasses the paywall so people can read it without paying for it.<p>> just like how the agricultural sector is hell-bent on scapegoating AI (and lawns, and golf courses, and long showers, and free water at restaurants) for excess water consumption when even the worst-offending datacenters consume infinitesimally-tiny fractions of the water farms in their areas consume.<p>When I learned about how much water agriculture and industry uses in the state of California where I live, I basically entirely stopped caring about household water conservation in my daily life (I might not go this far if I had a yard or garden that I watered, but I don't where I currently live). If water is so scarce in an urban area that an individual human taking a long shower or running the dishwasher a lot is at all meaningful, then either the municipal water supply has been badly mismanaged, or that area is too dry to support human settlement; and in either case it would be wise to live somewhere else.
Brewster’s concerns about the historical record are real <i>and</i> will eventually affect news orgs: their journalism may as well be ephemeral now without separate archiving. If a Wikipedia contributor, for example has to jump through extra hoops to get a stable link of a Times article, why wouldn’t they end up choosing an equally reliable WaPo article instead?<p>Tragedy of the commons.
Too little, too late.
AI scrapers are better and better at acting human.
AI scrapers already have a massive corpus; the marginal value of today’s need is low and will remain so long after access is cut off.
When they manage to block archive.is too then I will believe they are at least a little serious.
I think people forget one thing - LLMs don't even need to scrape, we copy paste and put articles and documents right into their mouth, they only need to keep the mouth open. Copy pasted content is also preselected manually, might filter out some garbage as well.<p>A subscriber opens the FT, reads an article about semiconductor export controls, pastes it into Claude to ask "what does this mean for my portfolio?" - the FT's content just entered a model's reasoning process, got synthesized with other knowledge, and produced derivative value. No scraper was involved. The paywall was respected. The subscriber paid. And yet the publisher's content was "consumed" by an AI in exactly the way they're trying to prevent.
This is a natural response to AI companies plundering the web to enrich themselves and provide no benefit to the sites being scraped.
Prof. Jeff Jarvis speaking about copyright for news in front of Congress:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX26ijBQs2k" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX26ijBQs2k</a>
Punishing archive.org for archive.today's sins
Yup. Recently built something that needs to do low volume scraping. About 40% success rate - rest hits bot detection even on first try
This is terrible for transparency and record keeping. X has also blocked internet archive access under similar concerns, but the end result was that now it's very difficult to tell who said what and when, posts can be deleted or edited, and no public figure can be held accountable for something wrong they said, or making contradictory statements over time, via a trustworthy archive.<p>You just have to rely on screenshots that may or may not have been fabricated, and maybe nobody's even captured a screenshot. If it's a public figure you normally trust, versus some random people's screenshots, of course you're gonna dismiss the screenshots as fake. It feels almost intentional to bring the platform into the dark ages.
I’m coming at this from a founder/product angle, not a technical one, so excuse the naive framing.<p>What worries me isn’t scraping itself, but the second-order effects. If large parts of the web become intentionally unarchivable, we’re slowly losing a shared memory layer. Short-term protection makes sense, but long-term it feels like knowledge erosion.<p>Genuinely curious how people here think about preserving public knowledge without turning everything into open season for mass scraping.
This partially feels like an intentional pendulum swing from Twitter/Facebook cancel culture and other forms of policing.<p>I'm thinking in particular about the rise of platforms like Discord where being opaque to search/archiving is seen as a feature. Being gatekept and ephemeral makes people more comfortable sharing things that might get a takedown notice on other platforms, and it's hard for people who don't like you in the future to try to find jokes/quotes they don't like to damage your future reputation.<p>Clearly very different than news articles going offline, but I do think there's been a vibe shift around the internet. People feel overly surveilled in daily life, and take respite in places that make surveillance harder.
<richevans>How does it feel to live long enough to see all your favorite sites go down in flames?</richevans>
The issue of digital decay and publishers blocking archiving efforts is indeed concerning. It's especially striking given that news publishers, perhaps more than any other entity, have profoundly benefited from the vast accumulation of human language and cultural heritage throughout history. Their very existence and influence are built upon this foundation. To then, in an age where information preservation is more critical than ever (and their content is frequently used for AI training), actively resist archiving or demand compensation for their contributions to the collective digital record feels disingenuous, if not outright shameless. This stance ultimately harms the public good and undermines the long-term accessibility of our shared knowledge and historical narrative.
As someone who has been dealing with SOC 2, HIPAA, ISO 9001, etc., for years, I have always maintained copies of the third-party agreements for all of our downstream providers for compliance purposes. This documentation is collected at the time of certification, and our policies always include a provision for its retrieval on schedule. The problem is when you certify their policy said X and were in compliance, they quietly change that and don't send proper notification downstream to us, and captain lawsuit comes by, we have to be able to prove that they did claim they were in compliance and the time we certified. We don't want to rely on their ability to produce that documentation. We can't prove that it wasn't tampered with, or that there is a chain of custody for their documentation and policies. If I wanted to use a vendor that wouldn't provide that information, then I didn't use them. Welcome to the world of highly regulated industries.
Yeah sure, "AI scraping concerns". No, they don't want to get caught secretly editing and deleting articles.
It's obviously not that, or they would have done this years ago. It very clearly <i>is</i> AI scraping concerns. Their content has new value because it's high quality text that AI scrapers want, and they don't want to give it away for free via the internet archive.<p>They will announce official paid AI access plans soon. Bookmark my works.
editorialised. Original title (submitted previously a few times correctly by others):<p>News publishers limit Internet Archive access due to AI scraping concerns
The death of trust on the cloud.
Explain it to me like I’m 5, why is ai scraping the way back machine bad?
The internet isn't so simple anymore. I think it's important to separate commercial websites from non-commercial ones. Commercial sites shouldn't be expected to be achievable to begin with, unless it's part of their business model. A lot of sites (like reddit), started of as ad-supported sites, but now they're commercial (not just post-IPO, but accept payments and sell things to/from consumers). Even for ad-supported sites, there is a difference between ad-supported non-profit, and sites that exist to generate revenue from ads. As in, the primary purpose of the site is to generate ad-revenue, the content is just a means to that end.<p>I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The main issue is not design patterns, but lack of acceptable payment systems. The EU with their dismantling of visa and mastercard now have the perfect opportunity to solve this, but I doubt they will. They'll probably just create a european wechat.
I mean why wouldn’t they? All their IP was scraped for at their own cost of hosting it for AI training. It further pulls away from their own business models as people ask the AI models the questions instead of reading primary sources. Plus it doesn’t seem likely they’ll ever be compensated for that loss given the economy is all in on AI. At least search engines would link back.
Those countermeasures don't really have an effect in terms of scraping. Anyone skilled can overcome any protection within a week or two. By officially blocking IA, IA can't archive those websites in a legal way, while all major AI companies use copyrighted content without permission.
That is a good question. However, copyright exists (for a limited time) to allow for them to be compensated. AI doesn't change that. It feels like blocking AI-use is a ploy to extract additional revenue. If their content is regurgitated within copyright terms, yes, they should be compensated.
Let’s be honest, one of the most-common uses of these archive sites has been paywall circumvention. An academics-only archive might make sense, or one that is mutually-owned and charges a fee for lookup. But a public archive for content that costs money to make obviously doesn’t work.
The problem with the Internet Archive is that site owners are not presented the data by the archive who, when and what did they access from their archive. This must be an absolute must.<p>So if you own monkey.com, then after showing site ownership you must have access to every access data related to your site. Problem solved.
The end of traditional news sites is coming. At least for the newspaper websites. Future mcp like systems will generate on the fly newstites in your desired style and content. Journalists will have some kind of paid per view model provided by these gpt like platforms which of course take a too big of a chunk. I can't imagine a WSJ is able to survive.
This is awful, they need to at the very least allow private archivals.<p>Maybe the Internet Archive might be ok to keeping some things private until x time passes; or they could require an account to access them
We need something like SETI@home/Folding@home but for crawling and archiving the web or maybe something as simple as a browser extension that can (with permission) archive pages you view.
This exists although not in the traditional BOINC space, it's Archiveteam^1. I run two of their warrior^2 instances in my home k3s instance via the docker images. One of them is set to the "Team's choice" where it spends most of its time downloading Telegram chats. However, when they need the firepower for sites with imminent risk of closure, it will switch itself to those. The other one is set to their URL shortener project, "Terror of Tiny Town"^3.<p>Their big requirement is you need to not be doing any DNS filtering or blocking of access to what it wants, so I've got the pod DNS pointed to the unfiltered quad9 endpoint and rules in my router to allow the machine it's running on to bypass my PiHole enforcement+outside DNS blocks.<p>^1 <a href="https://wiki.archiveteam.org/" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.archiveteam.org/</a><p>^2 <a href="https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/ArchiveTeam_Warrior" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/ArchiveTeam_Warrior</a><p>^3 <a href="https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/URLTeam" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/URLTeam</a>
In the US at least, there is no expectation of privacy in public. Why should these websites that are public-facing get an exemption from that? Serving up content to the public should imply archivability.<p>Sometimes it feels like ai-use concerns are a guise to diminish the public record. While on the other hand services like Ring or Flock are archiving the public forever.
Your TV probably does that, and you definitely gave it permission when you clicked "accept" on the terms.
I run an ArchiveBox instance locally. Recommended! <a href="https://archivebox.io/" rel="nofollow">https://archivebox.io/</a>
This is a good idea. Not sure what ToS it would violate. But a good idea.
But wait, I thought AI was so great for all industries? Publishers can have AI-generated articles, and instantly fix grammar problems, And translate it seamelessly to every language, and even use AI-generated images where appropriate to enrich the article. It was going to make us all so productive? What happened? Why would you want to _block_ AI from ingesting the material?
I fear that these news publishers would come after RSS next as I see hundreds of AI companies misusing the terms of the news publishers's RSS feed for profit on mass scraping.<p>They do not care and we will be all worse off for it if these AI companies keep continuing to bombard news publishers RSS feeds.<p>It is a shame that the open web as we know it is closing down because of these AI companies.
BitCoin fixes this.
[flagged]
I hate to say this, but this account seems like it’s run by an AI tool of some kind (maybe OpenClaw)? Every comment has the same repeatable pattern, relatively recent account history, most comments are hard or soft sell ads for <a href="https://www.awsight.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.awsight.com/</a>. Kind of ironic given what’s being commented on here.<p>I hope I’m wrong, but my bot paranoia is at all time highs and I see these patterns all throughout HN these days.
Agreed. "isn't just... It's becoming" feels to me very LLM-y to me.
Now the top comment on the GP comment is from a green account, and suspiciously the most upvoted. Also directly in-line with the AWS-related tool promotion… <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47018665">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47018665</a><p>@dang do you have any thoughts about how you’re performing AI moderation on HN? I’m very worried about the platform being flooded with these Submarine comments (as PG might call them).
I've sent them an email and temporarily banned the account. We've been doing that lately in cases that are hard to classify and where the user might be a legit user who is misunderstanding the rules.<p>I guess we'll probably have to add this explicitly to the guidelines; le sigh.
These days every green username is a chatbot.
> Regulatory frameworks like SOC 2 and HIPAA require audit trails and evidence retention<p>Sidebar:<p>Having been part of multiple SOC audits at large financial firms, I can say that nothing brings adults closer to physical altercations in a corporate setting than trying to define which jobs are "critical".<p>- The job that calculates the profit and loss for the firm, definitely critical<p>- The job that cleans up the logs for the job above, is that critical?<p>- The job that monitors the cleaning up of the logs, is that critical too?<p>These are simple examples but it gets complex very quickly and engineering, compliance and legal don't always agree.
Thats when you reach out to your insurer and ask them their requirements as per the policy and/or if there are any contractual obligations associated with the requirements which might touch indemnity/SLAs. If it does, then it is critical, if not, then its the classic conversation of cost vs risk mitigate/tolerance.
depends, if you don’t clean up the logs and monitor that cleanup will it eventually hit the p&l? eg if you fail compliance audits and lose customers over it? then yes. it still eventually comes back to the p&l.
And in the big scheme of things, none of those things are even important, your family, your health and your happiness are :-)
At some point Insurance is going to require companies to obtain paper copies of any documentation/policies, precisely to avoid this kind of situation. It may take a while to get there though. It'll probably take a couple of big insurance losses before that happens.
We already require all relevant and referenced documents to be uploaded in a contract lifecycle management system.<p>Yes we have hundreds of identical Microsoft and Aws policies, but it's the only way. Checksum the full zip and sign it as part of the contract, that's literally how we do it
Digital copies will also work I don’t understand why they just don’t save both the URL and the content at the URL when last checked.
I think maybe because the contents of the URL archived locally aren't legally certifiable as genuine - the URL is the canonical source.<p>That's actually a potentially good business idea - a legally certifiable archiving software that captures the content at a URL and signs it digitally at the moment of capture. Such a service may become a business requirement as Internet archivability continues to decline.
Apparently perma.cc is officially used by some courts in the US. I did use it in addition to the wayback machine when I collected paper trail for a minor retail dispute, but I did not have to use it.<p>I don't know how exactly it achieves being "legally certifiable", at least to the point that courts are trusting it. Signing and timestamping with independent transparency logs would be reasonable.<p><a href="https://perma.cc/sign-up/courts" rel="nofollow">https://perma.cc/sign-up/courts</a>
This is an interesting service, but at $10 for 10 links per month, or $100 for 500 links per month, it might be a tad bit too expensive for individuals.
The first thing you do when you're getting this information is get PDFs from these vendors like their SOC2 attestation etc. You wouldn't just screenshot the page, that would be nuts.<p>Any vendor who you work with should make it trivial to access these docs, even little baby startups usually make it quite accessible - although often under NDA or contract, but once that's over with you just download a zip and everything is there.
> You wouldn't just screenshot the page, that would be nuts.<p>That's what I thought the first time I was involved in a SOC2 audit. But a lot of the "evidence" I sent was just screenshots. Granted, the stuff I did wasn't legal documents, it was things like the output of commands, pages from cloud consoles, etc.
To be clear, lots of evidence will be screenshots. I sent screenshots to auditors constantly. For example, "I ran this splunk search, here's a screenshot". No biggie.<p>What I would <i>not</i> do is take a screenshot of a <i>vendor website</i> and say "look, they have a SOC2". At every company, even tiny little startup land, vendors go through a vendor assessment that involves <i>collecting the documents</i> from them. Most vendors don't even publicly share docs like that on a site so there'd be nothing to screenshot / link to.
Is it digitally certifiable if it's not accessible by everyone?<p>That is: if it's not accessible by a human who was blocked?
What if the TOS expressly prohibits archiving it, and it's also copyrighted?
Then said writers of TOS should be dragged in front of a judge to be berated, then tarred and feathered, and ran out of the courtroom on a rail.<p>Having your cake and eating it too should never be valid law.
I don’t think contracts and agreements that both parties can’t keep copies of are valid in any US jurisdiction.
More likely, there will be trustee services taking care of document preservation, themselves insured in case of data loss.
Isn't the Internet Archive such a trustee service?<p>Or are you thinking of companies like Iron Mountain that provide such a service for paper? But even within corporations, not everything goes to a service like Iron Mountain, only paper that is legally required to be preserved.<p>A society that doesn't preserve its history is a society that loses its culture over time.
The context was regulatory requirements for companies. I mean that as a business you pay someone to take care of your legal document preservation duties, and in case data gets lost, they will be liable for the financial damage this incurs to you. Outsourcing of risk against money.
Also, getting insurance to pay for cybercrimes is hard and sometimes doesn't justify their costs.
[flagged]
> when that page disappears after an acquisition or rebrand.<p>Sadly, it does not even have to be an acquisition or rebrand. For most companies, a simple "website redo", even if the brand remains unchanged, will change up all the URL's such that any prior recorded ones return "not found". Granted, if the identical attestation is simply at a new url, someone <i>could</i> potentially find that new url and update the "policy" -- but that's also an extra effort that the insurance company can avoid by requiring screen shots or PDF exports.
<a href="https://www.page-vault.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.page-vault.com/</a> These guys exist to solve that problem.
This is new to me, so I did a quick search for a few examples of such documents.<p>The very first result was a 404<p><a href="https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/reports/" rel="nofollow">https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/reports/</a><p>The jokes write themselves.
> I've seen companies fail compliance reviews because a third-party vendor's published security policy that they referenced in their own controls no longer exists at the URL they cited.<p>Seriously? What kind of auditor would "fail" you over this? That doesn't sound right. That would typically be a finding and you would scramble to go appease your auditor through one process or another, or reach out to the vendor, etc, but "fail"? Definitely doesn't sound like a SOC2 audit, at least.<p>Also, this has never particularly hard to solve for me (obviously biased experience, so I wonder if this is just a bubble thing). Just ask companies for actual docs, don't reference urls. That's what I've typically seen, you get a copy of their SOC2, pentest report, and controls, and you archive them yourself. Why would you point at a URL? I've actually never seen that tbh and if a company does that it's not surprising that they're "failing" their compliance reviews. I mean, even if the web were more archivable, how would reliance on a URL be valid? You'd obviously still need to <i>archive</i> that content anyway?<p>Maybe if you use a tool that you don't have a contract with or something? I feel like I'm missing something, or this is something that happens in fields like medical that I have no insight into.<p>This doesn't seem like it would impact compliance at all tbh. Or if it does, it's impacting people who could have easily been impacted by a million other issues.
Your comment matches my experience closer than the OP.<p>A link disappearing isn’t a major issue. Not something I’d worry about (but yea might show up as a finding on the SOC 2 report, although I wouldn’t be surprised if many auditors wouldn’t notice - it’s not like they’re checking every link)<p>I’m also confused why the OP is saying they’re linking to public documents on the public internet. Across the board, security orgs don’t like to randomly publish their internal docs publicly. Those typically stay in your intranet (or Google Drive, etc).
> although I wouldn’t be surprised if many auditors wouldn’t notice<p>lol seriously, this is like... at least 50% of the time how it would play out, and I think the other 49% it would be "ah sorry, I'll grab that and email it over" and maybe 1% of the time it's a finding.<p>It just doesn't match anything. And if it were FEDRAMP, well holy shit, a URL was never acceptable anyways.
> I feel like I'm missing something<p>You're missing the existence of technology that allows anyone to create superficially plausible but ultimately made-up anecdotes for posting to public forums, all just to create cover for a few posts here and there mixing in advertising for a vaguely-related product or service. (Or even just to build karma for a voting ring.)<p>Currently, you can still sometimes sniff out such content based on the writing style, but in the future you'd have to be an expert on the exact thing they claim expertise in, and even then you could be left wondering whether they're just an expert in a slightly different area instead of making it all up.<p>EDIT: Also on the front page currently: "You can't trust the internet anymore" <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47017727">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47017727</a>
Perhaps those companies should have performed verified backups of third-party vendor's published security policies into a secure enclave with paired keys with the auditor, to keep a trail of custody.
Your experience isn't normal and I seriously question it unless there was some sort of criminal activity being investigated or there was known negligence. I worked for a decent sized MSP and have been through crytptolock scenarios.<p>Insurance pays as long as you aren't knowingly grossly negligent. You can even say "yes, these systems don't meet x standard and we are working on it" and be ok because you acknowledged that you were working on it.<p>Your boss and your bosses boss tell you "we have to do this so we don't get fucked by insurance if so and so happens" but they are either ignorant, lying, or just using that to get you to do something.<p>I've seen wildly out of date and unpatched systems get paid out because it was a "necessary tradeoff" between security and a hardship to the business to secure it.<p>I've actually never seen a claim denied and I've seen some pretty fuckin messy, outdated, unpatched legacy shit.<p>Bringing a system to compliance can reasonably take <i>years</i>. Insurance would be worthless without the "best effort" clause.
It's interesting to think about this in terms of something like Ars Technica's recent publishing of an article with fake (presumably LLM slop) quotes that they then took down. The big news sites are increasingly so opaque, how would you even know if they were rewriting or taking articles down after the fact?
And for this we need cheapo and fast WORM, 100 TB/whatever archiving solutions.
If your soc2 or hipaa references the internet archive, you probably deserve to fail.
Dear news publications - if you aren't willing to accept an independent record of what you published, I can't accept your news. It's a critical piece of the framework that keeps you honest. I don't care if you allow AI scraping either way, but you have to facilitate archival of your content - independently, not under your own control.
How is the publisher supposed to fund their operations let along make a profit. How about a 1 year lock on the archive pages. There are many ways of keeping that record but not taking views undermining the business model
The same way they did back in the day, where libraries still existed that allowed people to read newspapers for free.<p>I kind of doubt that internet archive is really taking very much business away from them. Its a terrible UI to read the daily news.
The LWN model feels practical here:<p>> We ask that you grant LWN exclusive rights to publish your work during the LWN subscription period - currently up to two weeks after publication.<p>News is valuable when it is timely, and subscribers pay for immediate access.<p><a href="https://lwn.net/op/AuthorGuide.lwn" rel="nofollow">https://lwn.net/op/AuthorGuide.lwn</a>
> How is the publisher supposed to fund their operations let along make a profit.<p>There used to be plenty newspapers sponsored by wealthy industrialists; the latter would cover the former's gaps between the costs and the sales, the former would regularly push the latter's political agenda.<p>The "objective journalism" is really quite a late invention IIRC, about the times of WW2.
Objectivity was already a principle in the 1890s.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity</a><p>"To give the news impartially, without fear or favor." — Adolph Ochs, 1858-1935<p>Objectivity is the default state of honest storytelling. If I ask what happened ? and somebody only tells the parts that suit an agenda, they have not informed me. The partisan press exists, because someone has a motive to deviate from the natural expectation of fair story telling and story recounting.
> Objectivity is the default state of honest storytelling. If I ask what happened ? and somebody only tells the parts that suit an agenda, they have not informed me.<p>Already at the level of what stories are covered you have made choices about what's important or not.<p>Your newspaper not covering your neighbors lawsuit against the city against some issue because they find it to be "not important" is already a viewpoint-based choice<p>A newspaper presenting both sides on an issue (already simplifying on the "there are two sides to an issue" thing) is one thing. Do you also have to present expert commentary that says that one side is actually just entirely in bad faith? Do you write a story and then conclude "actually this doesn't matter" when that is the case?<p>There are plenty of descriptions that some people would describe as fair story telling and others would describe as a hit piece. Probably for any article on any controversial topic written in good faith you are likely able to find some people who would claim it's not.<p>I think it's important to acknowledge that even good faith journalism is filled with subjectivity. That doesn't mean one gives up, you just have to take into account the position of the people presenting information and roll with that.
You make it sound like bias is completely relative and undecidable. But there is a clear line journalists can cross - if they're intentionally misleading their reader, that's bias. It's qualitatively different from neglecting to cover a story or not finding a suitable expert or whatever. It's intentional deception because they want the readers to have wrong knowledge. And they do it all the time.
It's a great question, but they didn't seem to have a problem with this before AI, so I have to assume that the presence of a free available copy wasn't really impacting their revenue.
If an independent press is critical to open societies, perhaps some sort of citizen directed funding is needed to maintain independence from both capital and government?
Maybe it would be better if these news operations had to find better ways to sustain themselves than the current paradigms. Also, the internet archive is not the only archive, and there will be more. This ins't something they can really stop.
Reconfigure human society so that services like news don't need to make a profit and still remain credible.
I don't know even one news source I "trust." I expect them to push an agenda.<p>I also don't think they care even a bit. They're pushing agendas, and not hiding it; rather, flaunting it.
People need to abandon the notion of "trust" being a single axes between trustworthy to untrustworthy.<p>Every source has it's biases, you should try to be aware of them and handle information accordingly.
"everyone is stupid but me" is a bit too prevalent in the tech industry
You are doing it to the parent comment right now.<p>Why not interpret it to mean something like “no news organization has biases that are fully aligned with my best interests”
Not everyone surely. But some people
Persinally i think people harp on news bias too much.<p>I think the real problem is that they often dont put events in context, which leads people to misunderstand them. They report the what not the why, but most events don't just happen one day, they are shaped by years or even decades of historical context. If you just understand the literal event without the background context, i dont think you are really informed.
I consider almost all news to be entertainment unless I need its perspective to make a decision (which is almost never). It is a lot safer to remain uninformed on a subject as it settles than to constantly attempt to be informed.<p>Information bias is unfortunately one of the sicknesses of our age, and it is one of the cultural ills that flows from tech outward. Information is only pertinent in its capacity to inform action, otherwise it is noise. To adapt a Beck-ism: You aren't gonna need it.
Is it more likely that no one is speaking the truth, or, more likely, to you, the truth looks like an agenda?
What I'm talking about is that the news tries to tell you what to think. You can read headlines on Google News about the same story, and see the bias of the publication in the headline pretty often.<p>Instead of reporting just the facts, they include opinions, inflammatory language, etc.<p>Reuters writes in a relatively neutral tone, as an example. Fox News doesn't, and CNN doesn't, as examples of the opposite.<p>If you don't notice, I doubt you're reading the news. It's part of the offering. Fox does it on purpose, not accidentally.
What is wrong with reading other people opinions?<p>Newspapers in my country always were blogs before the internet existed. Its why they are still around and doing quite well- they don't just bring news.
Everyone has an agenda. The question is whether they are also reporting <i>facts</i>.<p><i>This</i> is the particular thing I care about. If I can count on their facts, I can mostly subtract their agenda.<p>See: <a href="https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive" rel="nofollow">https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive</a><p>The problem comes in when I can't count on the "facts" being reported.
The records already exist. Check your local library. The entire point of this is the scrapers undermine the business model.<p>If anything, we should simply me asking archive.org to limit their access to humans.
Libraries dont keep all periodicals and dont keep them forever. And microfilm is really lossy, unreliable, and difficult to search.
To hell with contempt of business model. Business models aren't sacred. Besides which, with business models owners capture the newsroom anyway.
As a news publisher (RedBankGreen.com) I’ll tell you that pretty much nobody is in it for the money anymore, at least at the local level.<p>It’s passion and love of the community, despite the many struggles and drawbacks.<p>AI bots scrape our content and that drastically reduces the number of people who make it to our site.<p>That impacts our ability to bring on subscribers and especially advertisers - Google and Meta own local advertising and AI kills the relatively tiny audience we have.<p>I dread the day that it happens in realtime - hear sirens? Ask AI who already scraped us.
Every business (even news) needs a business model.
Yes, but not every business works, and not every business model works, and not every business model works with every business, etc etc.<p>It's on the business to find a model that works within the environment of the free market <i>and</i> within the social framework.<p>If a business model only works by limiting competition, it's a bad model.<p>If it only works by limiting the rights of consumers, it's a bad model.<p>If it only works by blocking a legal activity (website crawling and scraping of publicly-facing data, for instance), it's a bad model.<p>And if their business can't operate otherwise, it's a bad business. No business has an intrinsic right to exist.
If a business model only works by copyright washing is it a bad model?<p>> <i>No business has an intrinsic right to exist.</i><p>Do AI businesses have an intrinsic right to exist?
Absolutely don't, and I've argued since day 1 that by refusing to try to contract for training <i>before</i> they just ripped it, each and every one of them should be saddled with so much legal liability as to not exist. The capitalist overlords however, will grasp at anything that promises them of being free of dealing with labor...so... Here we are.
I think the question of is a business allowed to have something free only for humans (presumably with advertising) does not have a clear best answer - politicians can decide.
News <i>has</i> a business model: do actual journalism. I don't see much reason to fund the people who are giving me the same story as everyone else who received the same press release, with no additional details: I might as well subscribe to the press releases.
And people wonder why we’re all locked in a race to the bottom.
If they don't have a business model we won't have newspapers to complain that we don't have archives for.
It's pretty easy to hold publications accountable without forcing them to publish content - just make them publish hashes of their content.<p>They won't, of course, because they don't want accountability.
First thing that came to my mind went along the same reasoning.
The second thing that came to mind was paywall evasion. Any time a news article behind a paywall gets posted here, someone in the comments has the archive link ready to go, because of course they do.<p>The incentives for online news are really wacky just to begin with. A coin at the convenience store for the whole dang paper used to be the simplest thing in the world.
I suppose that could be solved with a delay. Limit internet archive for articles that are less than a week old.
> Limit internet archive for articles that are less than a week old.<p>I mean this as a side note rather than a counterargument (because people learn to take screenshots, and because what can you do about particularly bad faith news orgs?): Immediate archival can capture silent changes (and misleadingly announced changes). A headline might change to better fit the article body. An editor's note might admit a mistakenly attributed quote.<p>Or a news org might pull a Fox News [1][2] by rewriting both the headline and article body to cover up a mistake that unravels the original article's reason for existing: The original headline was "SNAP beneficiaries threaten to ransack stores over government shutdown". The headline was changed to "AI videos of SNAP beneficiaries complaining about cuts go viral". An editor's note was added [3][4]: "This article previously reported on some videos that appear to have been generated by AI without noting that. This has been corrected." I think Fox News deleted the article.<p>[1] <a href="https://xcancel.com/KFILE/status/1984673901872558291" rel="nofollow">https://xcancel.com/KFILE/status/1984673901872558291</a><p>[2] <a href="https://archive.ph/NL6oR" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/NL6oR</a><p>[3] <a href="https://xcancel.com/JusDayDa/status/1984693256417083798" rel="nofollow">https://xcancel.com/JusDayDa/status/1984693256417083798</a><p>[4] <a href="https://archive.ph/XEI9E" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/XEI9E</a>
That would diminish archival accuracy, an outlet could amend the text without third party proof.
If the content was fully paywalled, it wouldn't be possible to archive it (unless the archiver paid for a subscription).<p>The reason the archiving works is because they expose the content publicly so search engines can index it.
> Any time a news article behind a paywall gets posted here, someone in the comments has the archive link ready to go, because of course they do.<p>I have no idea why this behavior is even acceptable.
I have seen zero evidence that independent archives “keep news media honest”. In fact, I have on several occasions noticed news media directly contradicting their own stance from just a few years prior, with no mention of the previously published account at all. This is true even for highly respected newspapers of record.<p>I can indeed find clear records of that in the archives. But what do I do with them? How do I use that evidence to hold news media to account? This is meaningless moral posturing.
Contact the journalist of the new article with the contradicting article? Letters to the editor? Submit an opinion article?<p>I've contacted multiple journalists over the years about errors in their articles and I've generally found them responsive and thankful.<p>Sometimes it's not even their fault. One time a journalist told me the incorrect information was unknowingly added by an editor.<p>I get that it's popular on HN and the internet to bash news media, and that there are a lot of legitimate issues with the media, but my personal experience is that journalists do actually want to do a good job and respond accordingly when you engage them (in a non-antagonistic manner).
The incidents I’m referring to aren’t “errors” though.<p>If a major article claims that certain groups don’t exist, while the same newspaper published a detailed report about those exact groups and how dangerous they are just two years earlier, it’s not because the journalist wasn’t able to do a 10-second Google search where <i>their own paper’s article</i> would have been among the top results.
> <i>But what do I do with them? How do I use that evidence to hold news media to account?</i><p>Contact their rivals with the story, have them write a hit piece. "Other newspaper is telling porkies: here's the proof!" is an excellent story: not one I'd expect a journalist to have time to <i>discover</i>, but certainly one I'd expect them to be able to follow up on, once they've received a tip.
That’s good. I don’t like archival sites. Let things disappear.
If most of the Internet is AI-generated slop (as is already the case), is there really any value in expensing so much bandwidth and storage to preserve it? And on the flip side, I'd imagine the value of a pre-2022 (ChatGPT launch) Internet snapshot on physical media will probably increase astronomically.
The sites that are most valuable to preserve are likely the same ones that are most likely to put up barriers to archiving
Perhaps the AI slop isn't worth preserving, but the unarchivability of news and other useful content has implications for future public discourse, historians, legal matters and who knows what else.<p>In the past libraries used to preserve copies of various newspapers, including on microfiche, so it was not quite feasible to make history vanish. With print no longer out there, the modern historical record becomes spotty if websites cannot be archived.<p>Perhaps there needs to be a fair-use exception or even a (god forbid!) legal requirement to allow archivability? If a website is open to the public, shouldn't it be archivable?
This is a good thing, IMO.<p>I am sad about link rot and old content disappearing, but it's better than everything be saved for all time, to be used against folks in the future.
> I am sad about link rot and old content disappearing, but it's better than everything be saved for all time, to be used against folks in the future.<p>I don't understand this line of thinking. I see it a lot on HN these days, and every time I do I think to myself "Can't you realize that if things kept on being erased we'd learn nothing from anything, ever?"<p>I've started archiving every site I have bookmarked in case of such an eventuality when they go down. The majority of websites don't have anything to be used against the "folks" who made them. (I don't think there's anything particularly scandalous about caring for doves or building model planes)
Consider the impact, though, on our ability to learn and benefit from history. If the records of people’s activities cannot be preserved, are we doomed to live in ignorance?
I don't think so. Most of my original creations were before the archiving started, and those things are lost. But they weren't the kind of history you learn and benefit from--nor is most of the internet.<p>The truly important stuff exists in many forms, not just online/digital. Or will be archived with increased effort, because it's worth it.
Like it or not, the Internet is today’s store of record for a significant proportion—if not the majority—of the world’s activities.<p>If you don’t want your bad behavior preserved for the historical record, perhaps a better answer is to not engage in bad behavior instead of relying on some sort of historical eraser.
Think about the stuff archeologists get to work with.
What's that famous quote - those who do not learn from history ...<p>BUT, it's hard to learn from history if there's no history to learn...
Kind of the "think of the children" argument: most things that are worth archiving have nothing to do with content that can be used against someone in the future. But the raw volume is making it impossible to filter out the worthwhile stuff from the slop (all forms of, not just AI), even with automation (again, not AI, we've been doing NLP using regular old ML for decades now).
Man I cannot disagree more. This is a terrible thing.