Slashdot Mirror
Tumblr Blocked Archivists Just Before Starting the NSFW Content Purge (techdirt.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Techdirt: By now, of course, you're aware that the Verizon-owned Tumblr (which was bought by Yahoo, which was bought by Verizon and merged into "Oath" with AOL and other no longer relevant properties) has suddenly decided that nothing sexy is allowed on its servers. This took many by surprise because apparently a huge percentage of Tumblr was used by people to post somewhat racy content. Knowing that a bunch of content was about to disappear, the famed Archive Team sprung into action -- as they've done many times in the past. They set out to archive as much of the content on Tumblr that was set to be disappeared down the memory hole as possible... and it turns out that Verizon decided as a final "fuck you" to cut them off. Jason Scott, the mastermind behind the Archive Team announced over the weekend that Verizon appeared to be blocking their IPs. Thankfully, it didn't take long for the Archive Team to get past the blocks. Scott tweeted on Sunday: "why look at that the archiving of tumblr restarted how did that happen must be a bug surely a crack team of activist archivists didn't see an ip block as a small setback and then turned everything up to 11."
Huh? this is the most incomprehensible sentence since "Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?". Do I just need mode Covfefe?
Oh yeah I know: Pornhub, Youporn, Xvideos...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
This article has about as much content as a mainstream print magazine. So many words, so little message. All I got out of this was, "People are angry about lack of porn backup. They're going to try and do something about it. Film at 11." Wake me up please, when "turned it up to 11" actually means something was accomplished.
Use a little common sense once in a while. --Book of Mooch Ch. 5 verse 14
OK. In a legal battle between legitimate archival of content, and the laws governing unauthorized computer system access, which one wins?
It is quite clear that Verizon DID NOT authorize the archivists to archive the data prior to the mass purge, as evidenced by the imposition of the IP blocking. As such, there is a strong case to be made that Archive.org was in contravention of the CFAA, and the workaround could be said to be a technical means of circumvention of that restriction of access (and thus, technically 'hacking', even though I REALLY hate to use such a word for such a simple solution.)
It is also quite clear that there is a cultural asset that was going to be removed, purely for PR reasons by Verizon-- which was in need of preservation, and the Archive.org folks acted to accomplish that preservation.
So... Which wins here? Just curious.
Good idea.
Let the dictators write the history books.
You might be surprised how valuable tumblr might be to future historians and anthropologists.
The bullshit, and moronic things that people do with cameras and the like, are a valuable window in the the currently modern era. That it was uncensored, uncurated, and unabashed-- means it is of the MOST value to such future generations of historians-- It is free from the associated biases those practices append.
What an utter fucking waste of bandwidth and storage.
I don't see a any noteworthy difference between sexual exploitation and non-sexual exploitation. Some people get more upset about sexual issues than about other issues, because sex is still taboo in most societies and thinking about sex in the US is strongly influenced by Puritanism. The exaggerated concern about sexual issues is irrational and in some cases also very hypocritical. There is nothing wrong with sex, there is nothing wrong with masturbating and there is nothing wrong with pornography produced by consenting adult actors. And there is certainly nothing wrong with "female-presenting nipples". Moral outrage about these issues mostly indicates a certain lack of maturity.
Now exploitation, that's a bad thing, or at least it sounds bad to me. We can agree on that. But that's a separate discussion.
It should be the case that they get express permission from a site owner before archiving a site.
Or make it far easier than it currently is for a site to be deleted from the Archive.
Plenty of sleazy journos who want to stealth-edit their articles agree with you.
In the old days, the internet was built on protocols. "Social media" mostly meant things like Usenet and IRC, and people hosted websites by spinning up an Apache instance that spoke HTTP and would serve their content to anyone who asked. And so there was never that big of a stink about censorship-by-nonprovision-of-services, since anyone could run an IRC server. Communities themselves were responsible for their own infrastructure. Don't like a particular IRC client? Use a different one. Don't like the folks who run a particular IRC server? Run your own.
But now that "I have apache running on a linux box in my basement hosting my blog" has given way to these "services", where communication platforms usually involve a for-profit company running all the infrastructure themselves in an opaque way. Aside from all the other issues that come from a corporate advertising-supported model, people are now learning that you can't trust these companies. The people I know who use tumblr as a primary means of communication are all going "gee, I wonder who else we can trust? We thought we could trust these folks."
But ... this isn't inevitable, and there's no reason that the next big thing in social networking can't be designed as an open protocol, with no central point of control -- a system where people may choose to provide the infrastructure required to power their Facegram or Instabook or whatever themselves, or (more likely) hire someone replaceable to do it for them. Open protocols can't be sold out and can't be owned.
Hardware capability is through the roof now. My smartphone has more storage, more processing power, and more bandwidth than the machines hosting IRC servers not that many years ago. There are no technical barriers to crowd-hosted social media.
people hosted websites by spinning up an Apache instance that spoke HTTP and would serve their content to anyone who asked. And so there was never that big of a stink about censorship-by-nonprovision-of-services
How did people become "anyone who asked" in the first place?
there's no reason that the next big thing in social networking can't be designed as an open protocol, with no central point of control
The IndieWeb community is trying to build a more protocol-centric social web. Each IndieWeb user registers a domain and buys hosting to hold his or her own posts, and IndieWeb sites use Webmention requests (similar to pingbacks) to notify other sites that replies have been posted. Right now, the biggest missing piece of IndieWeb is a recommendation engine to suggest related works by other authors.
Hardware capability is through the roof now.
IPv4 address space, by contrast, is not. Nor is IPv6 routing; I haven't seen evidence that an IPv6-only website can become successful in gaining and keeping readers.
My smartphone has more storage, more processing power, and more bandwidth than the machines hosting IRC servers not that many years ago.
But it's missing one thing: the ability to accept incoming connections on IPv4. Most cellular ISPs put their subscribers behind carrier-grade NAT, as do even home ISPs in some countries. These ISPs give the same public IP address to a whole neighborhood and will refuse to forward inbound port 443 on your neighborhood's IP address to your machine.
And around the same time Facebook prohibits even the slightest sexual innuendo. Is this all coincidence or is it a response to the SESTA?
From Webster:
append verb
apÂâpend | \É(TM)-Ëpend
\
appended; appending; appends
Definition of append
transitive verb
1 : attach, affix appended a diagram to the instructions
2 : to add as a supplement or appendix (as in a book) notes appended to each chapter
In context--- The practices of censorship, curation, or social taboo attach additional biases to content that is otherwise free of those biases.
Simply because your English parsing function got offended, does not mean you should turn off your brain sir.
Where is "they"? Let's beat "them" up!
I disagree. It's a massive amount of volume that doesn't really depict the real world at all. The real world looks nothing like what these 'influencers' or whatever depict.
Or make it far easier than it currently is for a site to be deleted from the Archive.
archive.org retroactively honors robots.txt. How much easier do you want?
It's only a "problem" if you assume that selling your body for sex is somehow worse than selling your body for manual labor (getting paid to dig ditches or run network cables) or selling your intellectual ability
It's not. It's the same thing. In a free society consenting adults can sell whatever they have.
Of course on this site "free society" and "libertarian" are the insults.
I don't respond to or upvote ACs
Where does the archive team host the content now?
Asking for a friend.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It was more akin to have a guard at the door telling people they would not be accepted in if they came from the direction from the local library, but it is open door for everybody else not coming from the direction of the library. Then the local librarian went past the house and came back from the other way and the guardsman left him in. Nothing illegal and nothing was broken.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Sell their body for sex?
Who pays for porn these days?
And that's pretty much the problem, who do you think is behind those bans? And have you noticed that the only places that get hit by bans like that are the places where you get porn for free?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If this is about improving the working conditions of adult actors, then you can totally count me in. I've been for improved and free health care and social security not just for actors but also for sex workers during all my adult life so far. I also think there should be better mental health care for such professions (and paid leave, if necessary), because this kind of work is stressful.
What I don't get is why consuming porn makes you "greedy" and what makes this "a problem". As I've said, this view is irrational and based on silly old taboos and religious superstitions. Adult actors are mostly in it for money, not for fun, these jobs pay way more than you could ever earn in any low wage job, but also come with a high level of distress and social stigmatization because of silly taboos. So your comparison to low wage jobs is puzzling. Now if your opinion is that it's better if adult actors would work at McDonald's and therefore the working conditions at McDonald's ought to be improved, I'd say, okay, that's an opinion one could have although I still don't see the point of it.
Everybody should get a high enough salary to make a decent living under decent working conditions in any profession, so I'd focus on improving both kind of jobs.
"Only applies to un/important things, as decided by Our Betters."
This attitude seems benign in regard to what I too consider socnet drivel, but the same approach is used to arbitrarily axe, vilify, or even prosecute. Sometimes against a single person, sometimes upon a nation. Often it's Because Terrorists, Because Drugs, Think Of Children, etc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse)
Let's say that big boy word again because it's The Point: arbitrarily
so you think that we can kill the demand by eliminating the supply? If so, i have a bridge to sell you! There is a reason that someone who sells their body for sex is one of the oldest professions in history, reducing the supply will only increase the demand as every other type of prohibition has always done.
Some people will always want to sell their bodies for sex as well, you should try talking to a sex worker, it may suprise you what their thoughts are on the matter. We definitly shouldnt be trying to make their minds up for them because the thing is that the majority of the consenting adults who perform in that industry could easily get other jobs and quite a few of them do have jobs and still do sex work because they like it and why not get paid for doing something you like.
As for your argument about their psyche, are you a doctor? do you think its fair to paint everyone with the same brush? After all, how can you say that some events are bad for their psyche when they believe they are in it voluntarily? EVERY event in our lives marks our psyche and you have just determined that those specific actions are bad, based on no evidence and without having any form of communication with those people at all, instead you believe that your ideals are the best ideals and everyone else should have to follow them instead of being their own individual and making their own individual choices. Yet you have the gall to talk about exploitation in the same breath as you talk about exploiting the rest of us to fulfill your fantasy world.
For the record, I sit in the legalize sex work camp, where people who want to do it can freely do it with the protections that every other kind of work gets. This also allows to reduce the stigma so that the people who don't want to do it can easily get out by going to the authorities. Much like how labor laws made it harder to exploit the worker, the same kind of protections should be made available for those who do and don't want to work in the sex work industry.
Maybe. But did you ever think about the people who are exploited by their partners posting the supposedly private sex tapes/pics? It's not only money but also power. Btw., like everything else seemingly "free" you pay for porn with your data/via ad revenue.
Sell their body for sex?
Who pays for porn these days?
And that's pretty much the problem, who do you think is behind those bans?
The Amish?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Possibly. There is no directly applicable precedent that I am aware of, and I am not a lawyer.
I would very much LOVE for Facebook to have its greedy data grubbing paws lopped off in court with the CFAA on grounds of illegal device access. It would make my morning.
Tumblr was popular, but the thing is that there are many places to go from there. Pornhub is accepting all comers with open arms. People are interested in running their own sites with Amazon LightSail and WordPress, as you control the site, and can back it up, or use a WP extension to do that job for you.
It is understandable to have a "family friendly" ethic, but I am pretty sure that the exodus from Tumblr to other sites will cost them more revenue than the "G" rated stance they have taken will bring in. Had Tumblr been "G" rated from the start, it would be a different story.
You did not explain what the distinction is.
Why is it different in your opinion to
a) make a video of yourself playing ping-pong clothed
and
b) make a video of yourself playing ping-pong naked.
I don't respond to or upvote ACs
Starts with the question why they pose for those tapes in the first place.
But you might know that there are laws against this and it's fairly easy to get them enforced, so what exactly seems to be the problem?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's your opinion. Mine is different, I see a clear distiction between those two, as I expressed above. So let's agree to differ.
That's fine for you, it that case I recommend you do not sell your body for sex.
But that doesn't mean it isn't fine for other people who have different views.
... doesn't really depict the real world at all. ...
I have some bad news for you.
Whatever 'real world' you think exists, just because you aren't part of a culture, group, or movement.... its value is not diminished nor heightened by your absence from it. Basically, your importance as you see it, and perspective, are over-rated. Just like mine, as I was not a part of Tumblr either.
I'm hoping you realize there's 7 Billion people on the planet who don't care whether or not you or I exist, right?
People sometimes see themselves in the situation having to sell their bodies for sex. And that *is* indeed a problem
I'll fix it one day.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I've been for improved and free health care and social security
So go fix it all, or help me fix it all.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Perhaps they are posting from an iPhone lol
Holy Crap. A searchable list of 2.6million archived tumblr blogs: https://transfer.sh/13Aa3n/tum...
By trying to rid the internet of porn, Verizon may have given us the best source yet.
Perhaps if it was easier to make as much money without exploitation then people would do it. But this is Western Society with its religious like infatuation with capitalism and profit. What you cactus in the majority of life is going to form a model for how you process the rest of life. It's unavoidable. What You practice you become good at until it feels natural, which means that is now the primary means of processing information by default
Censorship , business interest, and the demands of oppressive , hypersensitive, people with poor critical thinking skills is what's killing the web.
The Amish just block the porn by not having electricity in their buildings or vehicles. Even if young 13 year old Ike acquires an illicit mobile device from somewhere he has no place to charge it.
Some around here have a phone on a light pol in the middle of a field. Guess that's okay. Maybe they use dilaup to get their porn fix?
Hmm - sounds kinky.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
So you're free not to look. Your freedom not to be offended doesn't give you the right to regulate legal content you find objectionable, as long as you're not forced to consume it.
But that doesn't mean it isn't fine for other people who have different views.
Those people are free not to sell their own bodies and I applaud them for their independent thinking and would greatly appreciate if they kept their independence away from everyone else.
Sorry replied to the wrong comment. #tired #needcoffee #hotcoffeemod
Here, here!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Starts with the question why they pose for those tapes in the first place.
But you might know that there are laws against this and it's fairly easy to get them enforced, so what exactly seems to be the problem?
The problem is mostly that once it's on the internet, it's forever on the internet--and some of the really nasty cases, the answer to why they posed for those tapes in the first place basically comes down to "they didn't (willingly) pose." There's laws against this, too, but regardless of the ease of getting them enforced, the laws don't really do well at getting the material off the internet.
I suspect it could be helped by setting it up so your protection against users posting these images does in fact require you do your own due diligence--with the gold standard being something along the lines of you requiring copies of the legal releases...which are standard to have for any work made for commercial release, because they protect your rear end against a lot of things. These things are boilerplate forms, too, so even a site specializing in amateur work should not have trouble--just provide users with the form. (It also is a good sign of how legit any modeling or acting job is--if they don't want a release, or they won't let you have a copy of it, run.)
It sounds like one of the excuses for the conditions people "voluntarily" subject themselves to when they take on a minimum wage job. "They can quit anytime they want to, after all, right?".
. . . If it sounds like that then it's a pretty ok system. Because... yeah, everyone voluntarily (with no quotes) subjects themselves to a job in exchange for cash. And except for some crazy contract, the military, some professionals, you can just choose to quit whenever. The alternatives are: Slavery, or abolishing capitalism. And remember that the minimum is a good thing and some people don't even make that at their job.
Tumblr some time ago provided a switch that would allow blog owners to set their blogs as explicit or exclude them from search results (the latter toggled on automatically if you activate the former, although if you wanted to remove your SFW blog from search you could do so).
Recently they disabled the ability to deactivate these toggles - once you opt out of search or mark your blog as 'explicit', it's permanent, the toggles grayed out. That is, unless you edit the HTML source (e.g. through built in dev tools of Firefox or Chrome) and remove the relevant 'disabled'. Submit the changes and your blog is SFW again.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Trying to remove something from the internet is the same as removing a piece of memory from thousands of people. It's possible if you're willing to lobotomize them.
The real solution is to get over it. There are millions of porn videos out there, more than what any one person can reasonably see in a lifetime. Many of them far more appealing. Why should anyone watch yours?