I'm an Israel supporter but I think the way these companies just hand waive is endlessly infuriating. Whether it's this or Youtube removing covid "misinformation" or other things (from actual experts) - hey, we never have to explain anything to you; "violates our community standards" suffices as an explanation (but, god help you if you actually report things that need to be taken down, for very good reason - then, suddenly, it DOESN'T violate ANY of our community standards!)
They should all be in prison, most likely
They probably have also shared data and tech with the IDF, like Microsoft has done and most big tech corps.
dghlsakjg•3mo ago
Note: I am making no comment on the conflict itself here.
I understand that journalists have to go where the people are, but if your archive strategy relies on posts on social media, you do not, in fact, have an archive strategy.
propagandist•3mo ago
First, he's under no obligation to archive his posts. It's on the world to archive them and prosecute the perpetrators of the documented crimes.
Second, the platform in question has, at the highest levels, intelligence officers from the entity committing those crimes.
Third, humanity has failed in its moral duty yet again, and this sort of "neutral" commentary that ends with a glib remark directed at a murdered non-combatant is shocking to the conscience.
terminalshort•3mo ago
luaybs•3mo ago
terminalshort•3mo ago
luaybs•3mo ago
terminalshort•3mo ago
jasonlotito•3mo ago
dima55•3mo ago
tclancy•3mo ago
jasonlotito•3mo ago
He is dead. Any backups he might have made might be long gone, or otherwise, unknown. What we do know is that the IG posts AND the backups done via the Internet Archive are gone.
So, my question to you is: where can you set a backup for no cost, available from Gaza, and that won't be taken down 3rd parties. Note, anything online has the potential to have data removed, and even then, we don't know what other backup locations he might have been using. We just know what was available now to the public.
In addition, let's say he had hardware backups (which are now gone after he was killed), or let's say just a random S3 bucket. We have to know about it. Know how to get access to it. And hope that AWS doesn't nuke it because someone asks them to do it.
It's a big mess, and blaming him for not having more backups than an entire country is incredible.
terminalshort•3mo ago
jasonlotito•3mo ago
It gets deleted. TOS violation.
> (if you can access Meta, you can access Google Drive)
Not necessarily. No capable person that understands tech at all would think this.
> or any other cloud storage where you maintain ownership of your data.
If you don't own the infrastructure, do you really own it? And none of these are resilient to takedown requests, or other means of removal.
> Internet Archive allows takedown requests from content owners,
That's not what happened here. He was the content owner. Also, you pretend like other groups don't also do that.
> You can give people anywhere in the world the credentials to access it:
Like IG did?
None of your solutions meet my criteria in the slightest.
terminalshort•3mo ago
vasco•3mo ago
terminalshort•3mo ago
elygre•3mo ago
We do know that he is dead, though.
dghlsakjg•3mo ago
My comment only addressed the possible failure to understand the importance, and controversy, of this work and publishing exclusively on social media. Important and controversial things should not be entrusted to social media.
I say this as a former AP photo stringer, who has been in handcuffs, forest fires, and shoot outs in that job. My concern is, genuinely, that socially relevant documentary work needs to be held outside of social media for this exact reason.
propagandist•3mo ago
The media companies are virtually all editorially aligned with one side, and they put their thumbs on the scale when it comes to the news about this subject.
The mainstream reporting is so clinically sanitized that it loses all potency and the sense of urgency. They were never going to be conduits for this material.
The best platform is the one that allows you to reach a wide audience so the onus is on them to archive, not on the vulnerable people being hunted with impunity.
vkou•3mo ago
It's acting as a willing propaganda mouthpiece for absolutely abominable people. If they were doing nothing wrong, they wouldn't be hiding the truth of what they did from the world.
burkaman•3mo ago
thefz•3mo ago
Opposite view: platforms should have no say on content if it is not violating any law.
Yizahi•3mo ago
plugger•3mo ago