edit: adjusted title slightly

  • Crackhappy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • Beej Jorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        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…

        • Beej Jorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 days 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.