If I’ve learned anything in life, it’s that the capitalists will get their way one way or another against any attempts at human benevolence or community.
They always do.
I have high hopes for climate change though. It can’t be bribed or coerced into obscurity. I think the capitalists bit off more than they can hide from trying to exploit mother earth for private profit like just another peasant sucker, and unlike us cowering capital batteries, she’s had it with our species’ shit.
Removed by mod
They want to hide shadow edits, something that brings up questions of journalistic integrity
If you can be trusted to be honest as a news source, you shouldn’t be a news source. IA helps keep them honest on this front
Removed by mod
Nobody is going to be honest about this. They’ll claim altruism, and shout until you give up.
Removed by mod
Why ask the question if you’re gonna say “your reason is moot”?
Honestly as NYT subscriber I really doubt that people actually read NYT through archive or at least most of the archive reader wouldn’t convert anyway. To me it seems like a bad sign of them trying to hide something. Archive is a public way to track website changes which is very valuable for validating journalism.
In general NYT is trying to have their content public and take advantage of indexing but also private for selling subscriptions. It’s a bit of a paradox that really diminishes their position here.
^ This sort of bullshit argument is why we never should’ve stopped requiring a copy of everything to be sent to the Library of Congress in order to earn copyright protection.
Those “private businesses” are treating a privilege granted by Congress as an entitlement. They do not “get” to do that.