Teen Vogue’s Yanked Facebook Sponsored Content on Election Integrity(web.archive.org)
web.archive.org
Teen Vogue’s Yanked Facebook Sponsored Content on Election Integrity
https://web.archive.org/web/20200108170304/https://www.teenvogue.com/story/how-facebook-is-helping-ensure-the-integrity-of-the-2020-election
12 comments
The OP archive link is broken for me "Page doesn't exist"
I'm sure that this is just archive.org playing nice.
Edit: I'm assuming that there was actually content at that URL when it was submitted. But maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps jashkenas could clarify that.
Edit: I'm assuming that there was actually content at that URL when it was submitted. But maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps jashkenas could clarify that.
It was cached correctly when I posted it, but it’s certainly gone now. Sorry that I can't update the URL...
Thanks.
That's what I meant about archive.org playing nice. If sites ask them to update captures, they do. I'm not criticizing them for that. It's sort of a "right to be forgotten" thing.
But it means that they're not a reliable source for anything too controversial.
That's what I meant about archive.org playing nice. If sites ask them to update captures, they do. I'm not criticizing them for that. It's sort of a "right to be forgotten" thing.
But it means that they're not a reliable source for anything too controversial.
That's not what happened here. You're making huge leaps of logic, and while we might do a takedown, we will not "modify" a capture to satisfy a third party.
OK, fair enough. I saw three captures:
> Uh-Oh
> Unfortunately this page does not exist. Please check your URL or return to the Homepage.
So when jashkenas said that there was content when they posted, I wrongly assumed that the first capture had been altered.
But now I can see that the first capture (17:03:04) was missing when I wrote my comment. And so it's fair to conclude that the others were never altered. Mea culpa.
We do know that the 17:03:04 capture was there when jashkenas submitted "5 hours ago", at about 2020-01-08 22:40 UTC. But it was missing when wutbrodo and I commented at about 2020-01-08 23:40 UTC. And back when hcs commented at about 2020-01-09 02:40 UTC.
So yes, I was wrong about the mechanics. However, I have seen several takedowns, over the years. And I understand how archive.org must maintain working relationships. But the point remains that archive.org is not a reliable archive.
And that's sad. The Internet needs a reliable archive. So we have a coherent history of what actually happened. This takdown has apparently been reversed, but several others never were.
I must admit that I'm curious why the first capture was taken down, and then restored.
18:02:12
18:10:22
18:11:28
> Uh-Oh
> Unfortunately this page does not exist. Please check your URL or return to the Homepage.
So when jashkenas said that there was content when they posted, I wrongly assumed that the first capture had been altered.
But now I can see that the first capture (17:03:04) was missing when I wrote my comment. And so it's fair to conclude that the others were never altered. Mea culpa.
We do know that the 17:03:04 capture was there when jashkenas submitted "5 hours ago", at about 2020-01-08 22:40 UTC. But it was missing when wutbrodo and I commented at about 2020-01-08 23:40 UTC. And back when hcs commented at about 2020-01-09 02:40 UTC.
So yes, I was wrong about the mechanics. However, I have seen several takedowns, over the years. And I understand how archive.org must maintain working relationships. But the point remains that archive.org is not a reliable archive.
And that's sad. The Internet needs a reliable archive. So we have a coherent history of what actually happened. This takdown has apparently been reversed, but several others never were.
I must admit that I'm curious why the first capture was taken down, and then restored.
[deleted]
Original discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21994173
Ok, we'll move the comments thither. Thanks!