I would much rather see the source of a post before clicking on a link, as well as the current version of an article to see if there have been updates or corrections.

I would much rather see the source of a post before clicking on a link

This isn't a valid concern. You can see the source of the post by clicking the archive link, which is fully risk-free.

as well as the current version of an article to see if there have been updates or corrections.

You want to check for updates or corrections in what is inherently disinformation in the first place?

Have fun with that.

Of course that's a valid concern. I like to see what a post is about upfront.

And you go on to undermine your whole post, make yourself appear even more bias, and further justify archive.is being almost insta-ignored.

Fascinating perspective. Unfortunately for you, it isn't based in reality.

That's a very strange statement about something like this isn't it? But if wanting to know the source of post isn't based in reality then I am quite happy with that Mr. The-MSM-is-all-lies-but-let's-link-to-them-anyway-but-only-using-archive.is-and-don't-worry-if-it's-outdated-because-lies-lies-lies-disinformation-etc FarmEscapee Jr.

OMG bro, you are fucking hilarious. Keep going.. enlighten me!

That's a "feature" on using it because old and inaccurate websites can live on forever and still be found in Google.

Thanks for this. Archives are also important because let's say you found a site with important Intel you weren't supposed to find. The owner may notice heavy traffic and scrub something

Who will archive the archives though if those get compromised?

That is a good point. I'm not in favor of using archive for storing valuable information. If I recall correctly, it has been observed that some PG related information was "lost" from archives a few months ago. If you have information you want to save for your researching/redpilling activities, it is best to have it on a disk in your physical possession.

That is a good point. I'm not in favor of using archive for storing valuable information. If I recall correctly, it has been observed that some PG related information was "lost" from archives a few months ago. If you have information you want to save for your researching/redpilling activities, it is best to have it on a disk in your physical possession.

That is a good point. I'm not in favor of using archive for storing valuable information. If I recall correctly, it has been observed that some PG related information was "lost" from archives a few months ago. If you have information you want to save for your researching/redpilling activities, it is best to have it on a disk in your physical possession.

Save copies on your hard drive of anything important.

Watch, a day will come when archiving will be looked on with the same disdain as "leaking".

Archiving for the purpose of getting around giving traffic and income to journalists is just blatant theft of their work.

How do you expect journalists to continue reporting worldwide if there is no market for journalists to have a job?

You can find alternative sources for a story if you don't a specific source. If no other source is carrying a certain story, then perhaps they deserve the traffic.

The target here isn't journalists. The target is their mainstream media employers. If you think CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc. are "reporting" rather than delivering a carefully crafted message intended to misguide and mislead the populace, you've got some waking up to do.

If you think that CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc don't get a lot of their stories from journalists, never mind employ journalists themselves. Then you're the one with waking up to do.

You are undermining any credibility your message has by using those same sources you are claiming are just propaganda. As I said in my last post:

You can find alternative sources for a story if you don't a specific source. If no other source is carrying a certain story, then perhaps they deserve the traffic.

Justifying your theft with some pseudo-intellectual-moral bullshit is still theft and justifying it with bullshit.

Justifying your theft with some pseudo-intellectual-moral bullshit is still theft and justifying it with bullshit.

Holy shit, you just might be literally retarded.

"theft"

LMFAO

Dear lord, you are definitely useful.

Thanks!

And even easier.

Sweet. Thank you.

TIL: Russian Hostkey is the primary host [of archive.is] (known partner of Wikileaks and Syrian Electronic Army) by Cloudflare.

Domain name The WHOIS for the domain name shows that it's registered to Denis Petrov, with an address in Prague.

Uh oh, "But Muh Russia"!

Didn't say that but nice try.

I only thought to check for ads/trackers (there is one tracker from mail.ru). I forgot the obvious, who runs it, and the fact that they could edit anything they please.

I don't understand this thinking. You want real, professional journalists? But you don't want them to get paid for the content they create? And the money doesn't even come directly from your pocket? Honestly I don't know why you would use an article from a source you don't like, but that is the secondary point.

Your supposed ignorance of this issue indicates you have absolutely no reason to be here other than trolling.

You want real, professional journalists? But you don't want them to get paid for the content they create?

Journalists whom work tirelessly for the MSM generating propaganda to mislead the masses are neither real nor professional journalists. They get paid to spread disinformation.

Defending them and their sorry job as if they were doing us a service is deplorable.

Just because I disagree with you does not make me ignorant or a troll. Kindly fuck of with that.

Lack of knowledge on a particular subject does indeed make you ignorant concerning that subject. There's no arguing with the definition of ignorance.

My position towards you isn't based on your disagreement with me, only on your poor argument which definitely betrays your lack of understanding. Your argument shows very limited comprehension of the issue and has no validity. It is that simple.

You are just repeating that Iam ignorant without addressing my questions or points. You are not demonstrating that I have a lack of knowledge, you are just stating that I have a lack of knowledge.

Your basic problem is not seeing why someone would link a source they dont like. Often, people link to sources they dont like as a critique of the source: "look at what these biased fucks say about this" for example. This is very common, and you would obviously not want to give them more traffic, and they are not "real journalists" at all, but propagandists, no better than Joseph Goebbels.

and by giving that propaganda further eyes to view it, you are spreading propaganda. It doesn't matter if its a critique or not. There are ways to critique propaganda without repeating it.

I disagree with that completely, if you link to an archived page with the caption "check out this disgusting propaganda", that helps less trained people learn how to recognize propaganda.

I don't recall needing to see examples of Nazi or Soviet propaganda to learn how it works or how to recognize it. It may be helpful but not the best way. I liken it to giving a man a fish vs teaching how to fish. I think that using an example of propaganda is giving him a fish. Teaching someone to think critically is teaching them how to fish.

Pointing out propaganda is an effective aid in teaching someone to think critically though... and showing its actual use in history makes it a fact of life instead of conspiracy theory. It also gives motivation to start thinking sceptically about things, which is the only way to "teach" someone to think critically imho.

There will never be 100% consensus as to what is propaganda though. We still have holocaust deniers. Who chooses what examples of propaganda? A politician? A teacher? I consider a teacher a very unbiased source, but I know a lot of Americans don't.

There will never be 100% consensus as to what is propaganda though. We still have holocaust deniers. Who chooses what examples of propaganda? A politician? A teacher? I consider a teacher a very unbiased source, but I know a lot of Americans don't.

I think there is close to 100% consensus that nazi propaganda was propaganda, for these very reasons historical propaganda is a fantastic source.

Your train wreck of a comment is a hot mess, but here goes:

You want real, professional journalists? But you don't want them to get paid for the content they create?

I'm advocating limiting traffic for known propaganda websites. You twisted my wording and embellished drastically, saying I "don't want professional journalists getting paid". I never said that, nor even insinuated it. You are using a non-existent position I never espoused as an example and are arguing against it as if I had. You're either really confused or intentionally muddying the waters.

As an aside.... real, professional journalists definitely should be paid.

Problem is, any journalist spreading propaganda for the government isn't a real journalist, nor are they professional. Their postulated lack of income isn't my concern, because they are working towards the oppression of not only me, but you as well. Your position that journalists working for MSM companies are "real and professional" is thoroughly uninformed. You are arguing a propaganda-induced mainstream ideology in a subreddit which inherently knows better.

And the money doesn't even come directly from your pocket?

What kind of ridiculous argument is this? I'm not supposed to be concerned with the wretched abuses of corrupted corporations if the money to fund their endeavors doesn't come directly from my pocket? I'm just supposed to look the other way because I don't fund them directly?

You have absolutely no idea what you are saying. The point you are arguing has no merit whatsoever.

Honestly I don't know why you would use an article from a source you don't like

How are we to discuss conspiracies if we don't reference the disinformation, the propaganda, and the outright disprovable lies they put forth?

Your arguments are entirely nonsensical.

You quote four sentences, three of which are rhetorical questions designed to get you to think critically, and then tell me my arguments are nonsensical? Rhetorical questions are not arguments.

You can reference propaganda without repeating it. But go ahead and use archive to further disseminate the propaganda you hate so much

Your thought process is a mess. Very little can be gleaned from it.

Your supposed ignorance of this issue indicates you have absolutely no reason to be here other than trolling.

Let's test this. I posted a submission suggesting that we DON'T USE ARCHIVE for the reasons you suggest here. Please go an answer all seven of them on point. :)

Five are in the submission, and two are in the comments.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6dhbgd/the_dangers_and_problems_of_linking_to_archived/

Your post is self-contradictive.

While internet archives like archive.is and archive.org are indispensable tools for investigators and researchers, using them routinely to deny clicks and views is a big mistake for the following reasons:

1. Archive sites may decide to shut down at any time, leaving us with large numbers of dead links for posterity.

2. Archive sites may be forced to shut down through legal processes, particularly on copyright violations, again, leaving us with dead links. Copyright protection lasts so long that it is effectively forever -- so this may happen at any time.

You then​ contradict yourself by saying:

USE ARCHIVE SITES PROPERLY:

To preserve data that may disappear down the memory hole or may be altered.

I'm not going to address your post point by point; my time is more valuable than that. In your post, you speak in circles, use odd "logic" (we shouldn't use archives because the opposition can do the same to us, you say) and contradict your own statements.

I DO urge everyone to read your post, however, and arrive at their own conclusions based on the merit of the points you presented or lack therof.

I understand that one method of easy propaganda is to take things out of context, remove any nuance, and claim "CONTRADICTION!" Then, lazily dismiss the rest of it because of generalities like

In your post, you speak in circles, use odd "logic" (we shouldn't use archives because the opposition can do the same to us, you say)

I also explained why an archive war would damage the internet. Where's the contradiction in your selected portion? Back it up. :)

If we honestly oppose propaganda, I urge you to read the post again, more carefully.

The failure to notice nuance is apparent right in the quotes that you claim are contradictory.

On one hand, I said

using them routinely to deny clicks

This is what you recommended.

I recommended that we use archive sites "PROPERLY"

"Routinely" and "properly" are two different things. Specifically:

data that may disappear down the memory hole

MOST data will not disappear that way. We can usually tell the difference. In the comments, this was discussed further.

You seem to believe that everything should be archived or nothing should be. I am saying some things shouldn't be archived, and some things should be, based on factors like the ones mentioned here.

I'm not going to waste my time picking apart and responding to a word salad post which clearly contradicts itself and includes ridiculous arguments such as,

Only the most entitled of special snowflakes of the worst kind would want to sneakily show off an article to one particular community while deliberately and specifically denying everyone else from seeing that article.

(Doesn't make sense, that's not what is happening with archive at all)

And

When those with one particular viewpoint make it a habit to use archives, this distorts the discussion across the entire internet to favor that side.

Using archive "distorts the discussion across the entire internet to favor that side"?

LMFAO, what does that even mean?

Anyone with an ounce of discernment can see you are desperately grasping at straws in your post about why archiving is not a good idea. You have a dog in the fight, feel you have to make a point, but can offer only very flimsy and nonsensical support for your stance.

The only valid points you have are # 1 and #2.

I'm not going to waste my time picking apart and responding to a word salad post which clearly contradicts itself and includes ridiculous arguments such as,

Only the most entitled of special snowflakes of the worst kind would want to sneakily show off an article to one particular community while deliberately and specifically denying everyone else from seeing that article.

(Doesn't make sense, that's not what is happening with archive at all)

And

When those with one particular viewpoint make it a habit to use archives, this distorts the discussion across the entire internet to favor that side.

Using archive "distorts the discussion across the entire internet to favor that side"?

LMFAO, what does that even mean?

Anyone with an ounce of discernment can see you are desperately grasping at straws in your post about why archiving is not a good idea. You have a dog in the fight, feel you have to make a point, but can offer only very flimsy and nonsensical support for your stance.

The only valid points you have are # 1 and #2.

I'm not going to waste my time picking apart and responding to a word salad post which clearly contradicts itself and includes ridiculous arguments such as,

Only the most entitled of special snowflakes of the worst kind would want to sneakily show off an article to one particular community while deliberately and specifically denying everyone else from seeing that article.

(Doesn't make sense, that's not what is happening with archive at all)

And

When those with one particular viewpoint make it a habit to use archives, this distorts the discussion across the entire internet to favor that side.

Using archive "distorts the discussion across the entire internet to favor that side"?

LMFAO, what does that even mean?

Anyone with an ounce of discernment can see you are desperately grasping at straws in your post about why archiving is not a good idea. You have a dog in the fight, feel you have to make a point, but can offer only very flimsy and nonsensical support for your stance.

The only valid points you have are # 1 and #2. The rest is foolishness.

Point of clarification from my earlier comment: What I am opposing is the routine submission of archived posts -- not the archiving itself. For those who archive, keep it up. More power to you. That outta the way ...

waste my time picking apart and responding to a word salad post which clearly contradicts itself

Are you referring to my discussion of the meanings of the words "routinely" and "properly"? They are different words with different meanings, but you have nothing more to say on this now -- except to use the most valuable propaganda trick of repetition.

(Doesn't make sense, that's not what is happening with archive at all)

Blanket denials are another time wasting trick of propagandists. This is especially funny coming from someone who complains about wasting time.

In fact, right here in this very submission is an example of someone who would distort the internet to favor a side. I refer to the agreement post that then links to Breitbart directly. Breitbart! Nuff said on that!

LMFAO, what does that even mean?

Reddit provides valuable data for Search Engine Optimization. By archiving sites that you disagree with, you are essentially censoring the internet to favor your side. ("LMFAO" is just more ridicule, btw. Just ask the question.)

Anyone with an ounce of discernment can see you are desperately grasping at straws

Ooh, that's quite a condemnation. I don't speak that way because it adds nothing to the discussion.

You have a dog in the fight

Credibility attack, and one that assumes you are somehow pure and objective (even though your intransigence about the meanings of simple words indicates otherwise), while I am not.

I took a moment to look at your submission history. You have used exactly three sources. I will respect your choices of sources as independent. Now, take a look at my history. I live by practicing what I preach with many years of independent sites and very few partisan or MSM sites over the years. So much for your credibility attack.

Cry some more about it.

Rely on semantics all you wish; I'm sorry you can't seem to get your wording right the first time.

You didn't even object to what I said. I clarified it gratuitously expecting that someone with totalitarian views such as yourself would "cry" about it sooner or later.

You go around crying that people who disagree with you are "ignorant" or "uninformed," then you call all kinds of names, make all sorts of personal attacks and think you're all correct and smug.

A proper answer (you may need to look up that word) would be to say there is room for disagreement or to answer the specific objections to your arguments.

You can't because you are wrong on this issue.

Your extreme need to enforce compliance with your mistaken views is particularly harmful because we would probably agree on many other things. In fact, two of the three sites that you post from are on my list.

BUT THROW THAT ALL OUT AND MAKE A SPECTACLE OF OUR DISAGREEMENT as the powers that be exploit us.

THAT is "ignorance."

I'm not even reading your bullshit. You can write tedious comment responses four pages long, if you want to. Your post full of ficticious scenarios and illogical conclusions, however, won't become something of merit just because you harass me for responses to it.

I simply don't care what you type any longer.

There are other reasons to link MSM articles besides using as a source of information for an argument. You could be pointing out propaganda, or discussing the damage control against a certain conspiracy. But the journalists don't get paid per click, the company does.

And who pays the journalists? Come on man.

I'm just saying, there isn't anything wrong with boycotting propaganda mouthpieces of the government. The journalists will get paid either way. None of the major MSM are going to close the doors over 10,000+ people not giving them ad revenue.

But you do make a point! In the end they do get paid by the company they work for, whether they are a freelancer or subcontracted out. I'm just arguing that ad dollars from their website isn't their primary source of income.

Ad dollars is their primary source of income. The decline in journalism is tied directly to the rise of online news. Ill spare you my half hearted explanation.

Boycotting sources is fine, I do the same for various reasons. But if you think an article is propaganda, I would argue don't share it even using archive. Let it die. Using propaganda to expose propaganda is just spreading propaganda in my eyes.

One of the main goals of modern propaganda is to create confusion to spread fear. This puts people into fight or flight mode and their critical thinking is shut off.

Yeah, you make good points there, let the propaganda die. But there are times when we have to point it out and challenge it so that we continue to educate folks and show them the truth of the world.

But again you raise a good point that fear is their main tool. And I am the first to admit that the fear porn that is posted here at times is entertaining to read. Thanks for engaging with me I feel as if I have learned something important albeit a simple truth.

I agree that propaganda should be challenged, I would challenge it directly, like in the comments section. Or if you are really persistant, challenge the author directly.

Fear porn is a guilty pleasure of mine as well, I just try not to spread the fear.

And thanks for engaging with me civilly. Conversations like this fuel my optimism. Fuel that is in short supply these days.

Nice tactic. You're using the phrase "critical thinking" so it appeals to people here, while still actively arguing against using the archive and playing devil's advocate for the MSM.

Right. And further:

If you don't like the site, then don't link the article. Only the most entitled of special snowflakes of the worst kind would want to sneakily show off an article to one particular community while deliberately and specifically denying everyone else from seeing that article. To illustrate: the Catholic Church had such a policy during the Inquisition -- the books were good enough for them but not for the people generally.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6dhbgd/the_dangers_and_problems_of_linking_to_archived/

There are sites that do good analysis of propaganda. I have been posting from them for years. FAIR.org comes to mind. :)

Most of them aren't journalists. They are partisan hacks. Wikileaks exposed some of the fuckery going on between the media and Dems, but I'm convinced it runs much deeper. http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2013/09/07/mainstream-media-honchos-related-towhite-house-officials/

partisan hacks

links to Breitbart

Exactly the problem. See numbers 3 and 4. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6dhbgd/the_dangers_and_problems_of_linking_to_archived/

Was the info a lie? Would it be more true if I linked to WAPO?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/media-administration-deal-with-conflicts/2013/06/12/e6f98314-ca2e-11e2-8da7-d274bc611a47_story.html?utm_term=.b8549791bb4c

Yes most of them are partisan hacks, including all of Brietbart.

That may be true, but does it make the information they reported any less true?

You still need to have them there as a comparison. Archiving it allows comparative information to be used without them benefiting from our clicks.

This has nothing to do with journalists. This has to do with the tabloid press that passes for news today. Journalists are free to find papers that actually want to publish the truth instead of these 'yellow rags' you seek to defend.

I haven't defended any rags, let alone any "yellow rags". But who is willing to pay these journalists? Are you?

So you're not happy enough with the propaganda, you want me to get fucked in the ass twice and actually pay for it also? You're a sick puppy.

You said journalists are free to find papers that want to publish the truth, im telling you these papers are in short supply, and the ones that may exist dont pay. Propanganda pays the bills. You can find the truth for free.

Ok cool. I refuse to pay and the fact that some journalist somewhere has to find other work doesn't bother me one bit.

Confused. Does not the act of archiving the page give it a hit?

Yes. The page must be accessed once, just once, in order to archive it. After that, hundreds or thousands of readers are directed to the archive instead.

One hit on a propaganda site to deny it hundreds.... Completely fucking worth it.

Doesn't it refresh from time to time, so it would amount to a few more hits? Regardless, its semantics at this point.. I'm with you 100% for denying the 4th Estate traffic and helping land that final blow.

sticky pls!

My archive.is access has been blocked for a couple weeks now. I get "Bad Gateway" and timed out. When I go through TOR however, I reach it.

Very strange. Or maybe not so strange.

Are you outside of the U.S. or using a VPN that's outside of the U.S?

No / No.

Thank you. I will incorporate this into my routine.

Thanks. Why internet advertising is so big, I have no clue. I have never purchased anything online based off of some banner ad on a website.

They are aiming for the subconscious as well with their ads. It does have a small effect, even if only a tiny effect. Perhaps it is just the product in a store catching your eye. You most likely will not remember the ad from the internet consciously, but it may have been the reason your subconscious made it stand out in the first place. I'm no neurologist or psychologist but it is just one scenario I imagine these ad guys have to think about in today's world.

Why just archive the "MSM" ? Don't take bullshit "news" sites get paid, too? They have even less to risk.

And even more incentive to put out bullshit clickbait targeted at demographics that frequent this sub.

Does archive.is work for videos?

I'm not familiar with it's functioning with videos. I tried a video from YouTube but got a message that it is not formatted for playbck on my device.

The video played fine on my device from YouTube, but not from archive.

Got it. It won't archive videos. The space requirement on severs would be huge. Could you imagine if some one created a spider to archive videos from YouTube. It would probably archive all their space in half a day.

I just went in my google chrome extensions and added the adblock.

I'd still like to know where the story comes from before I click on it.

What's the difference between archive.is and archive.org? Is one better than the other? Why? TIA

Funny that I've never seen this done for Breitbart of Fox News.

Fox News is on their shitlist now so expect it to be soon.

Faux news has been on my shit list for decades.

This! I was saying the same thing a few months ago.

All MSM sources should be posted here via archive.org imo.

Cy

Thank you, and like myself don't be afraid to add an archive link to other posts that neglected to include one!

If I'm using their source material, then I see no reason to bilk them. I do archive or screenshot or capture via other methods when there is a high risk of malware, though.

Point of clarification from my earlier comment: What I am opposing is the routine submission of archived posts -- not the archiving itself. For those who archive, keep it up. More power to you. That outta the way ...

waste my time picking apart and responding to a word salad post which clearly contradicts itself

Are you referring to my discussion of the meanings of the words "routinely" and "properly"? They are different words with different meanings, but you have nothing more to say on this now -- except to use the most valuable propaganda trick of repetition.

(Doesn't make sense, that's not what is happening with archive at all)

Blanket denials are another time wasting trick of propagandists. This is especially funny coming from someone who complains about wasting time.

In fact, right here in this very submission is an example of someone who would distort the internet to favor a side. I refer to the agreement post that then links to Breitbart directly. Breitbart! Nuff said on that!

LMFAO, what does that even mean?

Reddit provides valuable data for Search Engine Optimization. By archiving sites that you disagree with, you are essentially censoring the internet to favor your side. ("LMFAO" is just more ridicule, btw. Just ask the question.)

Anyone with an ounce of discernment can see you are desperately grasping at straws

Ooh, that's quite a condemnation. I don't speak that way because it adds nothing to the discussion.

You have a dog in the fight

Credibility attack, and one that assumes you are somehow pure and objective (even though your intransigence about the meanings of simple words indicates otherwise), while I am not.

I took a moment to look at your submission history. You have used exactly three sources. I will respect your choices of sources as independent. Now, take a look at my history. I live by practicing what I preach with many years of independent sites and very few partisan or MSM sites over the years. So much for your credibility attack.

And even more incentive to put out bullshit clickbait targeted at demographics that frequent this sub.