←back to thread

492 points vladyslavfox | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
myself248 ◴[] No.41896048[source]
I'd like to imagine a world where every lawyer, when their case is helped by a Wayback Machine snapshot of something, flips a few bucks to IA. They could afford a world-class admin team in no time flat.
replies(2): >>41896197 #>>41897663 #
thaumasiotes ◴[] No.41896197[source]
That's a terrible solution. The Wayback Machine takes down their snapshots at the request of whoever controls the domain. That's not archival.

If the state of a webpage in the past matters to you, you need a record that won't cease to exist when your opposition asks it to. This is the concept behind perma.cc.

replies(3): >>41896261 #>>41896697 #>>41896848 #
db48x ◴[] No.41896697[source]
No, they don’t delete the archived content. When the domain’s robots.txt file bans spidering, then the Wayback Machine _hides_ the content archived at that domain. It is still stored and maintained, but it isn’t distributed via the website. The content will be unhidden if the robots.txt file stops banning spiders, or if an appropriate request is made.
replies(6): >>41896874 #>>41896927 #>>41896931 #>>41900009 #>>41902646 #>>41903368 #
Raed667 ◴[] No.41896931{3}[source]
They do delete entire domains from the archive upon request & proof of ownership.
replies(1): >>41897513 #
1. db48x ◴[] No.41897513{4}[source]
Again, no they don’t. They just hide them.