We need a distributed and censorship-resistant conservancy system, because the Wayback Machine can only do so much (and it can trivially be censored). Unfortunately, it's not a money-making enterprise.
Color me skeptical, but it seems like such a system would eventually need to seek out a business model and would turn into mugshotsonline.us writ large. Or "toxic yelp reviews of dubious origin" but for humans instead of businesses. And with all the perverse incentives.
Censorship is bad, but profit-motivated society-wide forever-grudges against people in no significant position of power is also bad.
Should you care about what happened to me? I can’t really argue for it. But I can say that the dangers the above comment lists are real.
I just don't understand and am curious where this idea comes from that the Internet must be archived. I don't necessarily disagree with it, but it seems like an expectation that's at odds with reality.
Once newspapers finally kick the bucket (which is happening right now, in slow motion), all the information about our world will only be available in this ephemeral form - ready to be rewritten, manipulated or discarded by our rulers like China does now.
Surely that is a terrifying thought, even if you haven't read 1984 or Fahrenheit 451...?
The accountability that comes from historical records is one of the pillars of democratic societies. Losing it will plunge us in a very technological version of the Middle Ages.