You've just reinvented curation, but giving Google a pass for not them doing it themselves and shifting the work onto others.
Multiple regulators should sue Google for putting users at risk by failing to protect users from malicious code before publishing Chrome extensions and Android apps.
No, how it should work is each extension is associated with a private key that is registered with a specific individual or legal entity and implies some kind of liability for anything signed with that key - and if/when the key changes (or the associated credentials), users will be explicitely alerted and need to re-authenticate the plugin.
If the old owner gives their key to the new owner, then they should be on the hook for it.
I was thinking of this yesterday, as I think this is also how domains should work.
How does this safe guards against having the extension under a company and selling that company off. Still the same entity, different owners, different "incentives".
I'm using claude code to develop this for myself. The age of personal software is here! One stop shop, add things, query calendars, attach meeting notes. "What do I know about Tom's work in the last 3 months" --> agents go to internal tools to summarize the work.
Having formerly been a member of a terrorist group is different from currently being in one - it may not be illegal, but lying about it is a deportable offence.
I wonder. Would it be possible for any/all submissions to automatically generate (and provide) and archive.is/archive.org link? @dang
I can't think of any large downsides, it would mean every submission would have an available snapshot for the given time, and we would no longer need a user comment to provide this.
I'm confident that you didn't realize what you were saying, but I really chuckled at "I can't think of any large downsides [in institutionalizing a clearly very legally questionable practice]".
There's a thing called "copyright" and it's kind of like a union, but for people who write or create art. It gives them the right to decide who gets to make a copy. Many of the best sources of news put up a paywall because it's what allows them to pay their reporters. When you make an illicit copy without their permission, you undermine their ability to make a living. In other words, eat.
I'm not interested in having a debate on the legality of it which is why I said "legally questionable." It doesn't strike me as implausible that you wouldn't know what copyright is, if you don't accept the premise that linking to the internet archive for any and all paywalled contemporary content is at least legally questionable.
> if you don't accept the premise that ... is at least legally questionable.
The premise was that this is so obvious that my naivety is funny. But no, you don't want to debate that point - Why would you care to consider otherwise, it's not you losing face if correct.
You'll also notice that the link in this post (https://archive.is/TajtJ) shows a 'log in' button, implying that log-in credentials where not used (or abused) to get/share this snapshot.
I don’t follow the first paragraph of this comment at all, it just seems vaguely antagonistic. You also seem to be suggesting I’m taking a view on a debate that I am not.
That such a blog post exists at least suggests the legal “question” exists, which again is the only thing I said in the first place.
There’s a big difference between accepting people will post links that just happen to, sometimes get people past paywalls - and operationalising that so it’s the default behaviour
Actually I'd say the opposite: If it only happens with paywalled sites it's clear that its purpose it to circumvent paywalls. If you always do it, It's so there is a record of the original site at time of posting.
Why isn't that already an issue then? archive.is links remain, despite being easy to otherwise detect?
IANAL, but it would seem to me HN couldn't be liable, since it is a third party (archive.is/org) caching the site. In fact, I always assumed that's why the links aren't removed.
I am also not a lawyer, but I would guess that a court might differentiate between choosing not to actively scour user generated content for archive links, versus choosing to proactively provide those links.
To expand on this; I don't think other forms of active moderation get this pass, you don't get to harbour copyrighted IP, CPP or other illegal material posted on a forum by just not moderating.
further, if intent would be a possible defence, I already mentioned that archiving everything looks better than only having links when there are paywalls, active or otherwise.
from a moral position, I don't think HN moves the needle wrt enabling bypassing - most if not all HN users are likely fully capable of using archiving sites themselves, if not automating the process themselves.
> You're either delusional or just being a contrarian
As kgwgk points out [*1], the proposition wasn't "5:30AM isn't particularly early", but rather "5:30AM isn't particularly early to visit a flea market".
Despite being US-centric, this is also an international forum, values may differ. I initially assumed the market was French/European when they mentioned looking for vintage culinary knifes.
> Since you seem to think that flipping and scalping is a valuable addition to society, we have nothing to discuss.
Not interested in good-faith discussions of differing viewpoints?
I'm not going to downvote you, but I think this is pretty narrow-minded for a discussion forum like this.
reply