I’ll give you my opinion though you haven’t asked for it:
Some right wingers (libertarian mostly) don’t want to ban books, they want books in fact to be reliably available, and having one centralized Internet Archive to store all of them is not reliable.
(Or in the same logic for humanity to be knowledgeable and resistant to propaganda, and treating sources’ availability as a given being harmful towards that goal - naive people can believe wrong things.)
See Babylon V example with kicking the ant hive again and again to some well-meaning goal, of the evolution kind.
Mind that I don’t think these people have such an intent.
It’s just in my childhood someone has gaslighted me into trying to be optimistic in such cases. Like “if someone is digging a grave for you, just wait till they’re done, you’ll get a nice pond”. Same as a precedent that is created with one intent and interpretation, but works for all possible intents and interpretations, because it’s a real world event.
So, other than gaslighting, real effects are real. Including positive ones, like all of us right now realizing that a centralized IA is unacceptable, we need something like “IA@home”, with a degree of forkability without duplicating the data, so that someone who’d somehow hijack the private key or whatever identifying said new IA’s authority wouldn’t be able to harm existing versions and they wouldn’t require much more storage.
Shit, I can’t stop thinking about that “common network and identities and metadata exchange, but data storage shared per communities one joins, Freenet-like” idea, but I don’t even remotely know where to start developing it and doubt I’ll ever.
I’ll give you my opinion though you haven’t asked for it:
Some right wingers (libertarian mostly) don’t want to ban books, they want books in fact to be reliably available, and having one centralized Internet Archive to store all of them is not reliable.
(Or in the same logic for humanity to be knowledgeable and resistant to propaganda, and treating sources’ availability as a given being harmful towards that goal - naive people can believe wrong things.)
See Babylon V example with kicking the ant hive again and again to some well-meaning goal, of the evolution kind.
Mind that I don’t think these people have such an intent.
It’s just in my childhood someone has gaslighted me into trying to be optimistic in such cases. Like “if someone is digging a grave for you, just wait till they’re done, you’ll get a nice pond”. Same as a precedent that is created with one intent and interpretation, but works for all possible intents and interpretations, because it’s a real world event.
So, other than gaslighting, real effects are real. Including positive ones, like all of us right now realizing that a centralized IA is unacceptable, we need something like “IA@home”, with a degree of forkability without duplicating the data, so that someone who’d somehow hijack the private key or whatever identifying said new IA’s authority wouldn’t be able to harm existing versions and they wouldn’t require much more storage.
Shit, I can’t stop thinking about that “common network and identities and metadata exchange, but data storage shared per communities one joins, Freenet-like” idea, but I don’t even remotely know where to start developing it and doubt I’ll ever.