this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
131 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

81451 readers
3893 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
131
Preserving The Web Is Not The Problem. Losing It Is. (www.techdirt.com)
submitted 1 day ago by supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Recent reporting by Nieman Lab describes how some major news organizations—including The Guardian, The New York Times, and Reddit—are limiting or blocking access to their content in the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. As stated in the article, these organizations are blocking access largely out of concern that generative AI companies are using the Wayback Machine as a backdoor for large-scale scraping.

These concerns are understandable, but unfounded. The Wayback Machine is not intended to be a backdoor for large-scale commercial scraping and, like others on the web today, we expend significant time and effort working to prevent such abuse. Whatever legitimate concerns people may have about generative AI, libraries are not the problem, and blocking access to web archives is not the solution; doing so risks serious harm to the public record.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 7 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It's been darkly amusing watching the various social media hive-minds that used to be all for the concept of "information wanting to be free" suddenly discovering that they hate AI more than they love freedom of information.

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean the end goal of AI is to monetize access to information while obsfucating the pre-existing free information so there's no real conflict there?

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io -1 points 1 day ago

AI is a technology being developed and deployed by millions of people and thousands of corporations, across a huge number of countries. Users can probably be counted in the hundreds of millions now. Which ones' "end goal" is this?

[–] tomalley8342@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

There is no conflict here, the strain of "serving" clankers denies resources to real people that actually need to access that information.

[–] AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

Sometimes I wonder what the prevalent response to AI would be if we lived in a better world? There are environmental and resource concerns, but I think if they weren't desperately trying to shove it everywhere to make a profit I'm not sure those would be unmanageable.

Information still wants to be free, but the way corporations are actually using AI right now in our economic hellscape punches people much lower in the (Maslow's) hierarchy of needs.