this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
964 points (99.7% liked)

Technology

59428 readers
2824 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

edit: adjusted title slightly

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 152 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Google killed off their own cached pages last month and they're now using IA as a replacement. Free linking is definitely important, but this is Google we're talking about, and them using IA to save money - this feels a lot more exploitative if Google isn't funding them in some way.

[–] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 75 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think you're both right. Anyone should be able to link to an IA page, but Google basically was doing the same thing as IA with their cached pages. Now they've gotten rid of that service and are simply relying on IA to take all of the load that they had. I think they should help fund IA to compensate for the extra load.

[–] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I agree they should. But I also agree they shouldn't be required to. And if they don't, that we should just live with it as the lesser of two evils.

[–] RyeBread@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would argue regulation should come with (and typically be proportional to) scale. Google as an organization operates at an enormous scale. The scale of the amount links replaced with IA links will be large. The scale in amount in operational costs transferred to another organization is obviously worth it to Google. The sheer scale of everything and everyone involved should require Google to pay Internet Archive. In a decent world that is...

[–] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago

I don't entirely disagree, but I think defining much of that in effective legal terms is going to be virtually impossible. And I'm super-wary of anything that says someone can't link to something.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago

I had not realized that. They should absolutely be allowed to do it, but it's super shitty of them to basically offload that cost onto IA. IA of course would be well within their rights to try and monetize it. Look at incoming traffic that deep links a cached page and has a Google.com referrer, and throw a splash page or top banner asking for donation.