A Soft Rah Rah for a Professional Publisher

December 8, 2023

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Predictive modeling and other AI capabilities have the potential to greatly accelerate scientific research. But since algorithmic research assistants are only as good as their data, time spent by humans rigorously sourcing the best data can cause a bottleneck. Now, reports New Zealand’s IT Brief, “Elsevier Launches ‘Datasets’ to Assist Research with Predictive AI Models.” Journalist Catherine Knowles writes:

“Elsevier, a global expert in scientific information and analytics, has launched Datasets, a new research product to assist a range of industries including life sciences, engineering, chemicals, and energy. The product utilizes generative AI and predictive analytics technologies, addressing the frequent challenge of data scientists having to dedicate significant time to source quality data for well-trained AI models. Datasets speeds up the digital transformation process by providing comprehensive, machine-readable data derived from trusted academic sources. With the ability to be fully integrated into private and secure computational ecosystems, its implementation helps safeguard intellectual property. The product aims to accelerate innovative thinking and business-critical decision-making processes in sectors heavy in research and development. Elsevier’s Datasets have a range of potential applications. These vary from determining the appropriate material for the development of a product by accessing sources such as Elsevier’s 271 million chemical substance records, to predicting drug efficacy and toxicity using advanced neural networks. Additionally, businesses can uncover company-wide expertise in specific disciplines through Elsevier’s 1.8 billion cited references and 17 million author profiles.”

This reminds us of the Scopus upgrade we learned about over the summer, but the write-up does not mention whether the projects are connected. We do learn Datasets can be incorporated into custom applications and third-party tools. If all goes well, this could be one AI application that actually contributes to society. Imagine that.

Cynthia Murrell, December 8, 2023

Bogus Research Papers: They Are Here to Stay

November 27, 2023

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Science Is Littered with Zombie Studies. Here’s How to Stop Their Spread” is a Don Quixote-type write up. The good Don went to war against windmills. The windmills did not care. The people watching Don and his trusty sidekick did not care, and many found the site of a person of stature trying to gore a mill somewhat amusing.


A young researcher meets the ghosts of fake, distorted, and bogus information. These artefacts of a loss of ethical fabric wrap themselves around the peer-reviewed research available in many libraries and in for-fee online databases. When was the last time you spotted a correction to a paper in an online database? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. After several tries I got ghosts in a library. Wow, that was a task.

Fake research, non-reproducible research, and intellectual cheating like the exemplars at Harvard’s ethic department and the carpetland of Stanford’s former president’s office seem commonplace today.

The Hill’s article states:

Just by citing a zombie publication, new research becomes infected: A single unreliable citation can threaten the reliability of the research that cites it, and that infection can cascade, spreading across hundreds of papers. A 2019 paper on childhood cancer, for example, cites 51 different retracted papers, making its research likely impossible to salvage. For the scientific record to be a record of the best available knowledge, we need to take a knowledge maintenance perspective on the scholarly literature.

The idea is interesting. It shares a bit of technical debt (the costs accrued by not fixing up older technology) and some of the GenX, GenY, and GenZ notions of “what’s right.” The article sidesteps a couple of thorny bushes on its way to the Promised Land of Integrity.

First, the academic paper is designed to accomplish several things. First, it is a demonstration of one’s knowledge value. “Hey, my peers said this paper was fit to publish” some authors say. Yeah, as a former peer reviewer, I want to tell you that harsh criticism is not what the professional publisher wanted. These papers mean income. Don’t screw up the cash flow,” was the message I heard.

Second, the professional publisher certainly does not want to spend the resources (time and money) required to do crapola archeology. The focus of a professional publisher is to make money by publishing information to niche markets and charging as much money as possible for that information. Academic accuracy, ethics, and idealistic hand waving are not part of the Officers’ Meetings at some professional publisher off-sites. The focus is on cost reduction, market capture, and beating the well-known cousins in other companies who compete with one another. The goal is not the best life partner; the objective is revenue and profit margin.

Third, the academic bureaucracy has to keep alive the mechanisms for brain stratification. Therefore, publishing something “groundbreaking” in a blog or putting the information in a TikTok simply does not count. In fact, despite the brilliance of the information, the vehicle is not accepted. No modern institution building its global reputation and its financial services revenue wants to accept a person unless that individual has been published in a peer reviewed journal of note. Therefore, no one wants to look at data or a paper. The attention is on the paper’s appearing in the peer reviewed journal.

Who pays for this knowledge garbage? The answer is [a] libraries who have to “get” the journals departments identify as significant, [b] the US government which funds quite a bit of baloney and hocus pocus research via grants, [c] the authors of the paper who have to pay for proofs, corrections, and goodness knows what else before the paper is enshrined in a peer-reviewed journal.

Who fixes the baloney? No one. The content is either accepted as accurate and never verified or the researcher cites that which is perceived as important. Who wants to criticize one’s doctoral advisor?

News flash: The prevalence and amount of crapola is unlikely to change. In fact, with the easy availability of smart software, the volume of bad scholarly information is likely to increase. Only the disinformation entities working for nation states hostile to the US of A will outpace US academics in the generation of bogus information.

Net net: The wise researcher will need to verify a lot. But that’s work. So there we are.

Stephen E Arnold, November 27, 2023

ACM Kills Print Publications But Dodges the Money Issue

November 6, 2023

green-dino_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.

In January 2024, the Association for Computing Machinery will kill off its print publication. “Ceasing Print Publication of ACM Journals and Transaction” says good bye to the hard copy instances of Communications of ACM, ACM InRoads, and a couple of other publications. It is possible that ACM will continue to produce print versions of material for students. (I thought students were accustomed to digital content. Guess the ACM knows something I don’t. That’s not too difficult. I am a dinobaby, who read ACM publications for the stories, not the pictures.)


The perspiring clerk asks, “But what about saving the whales?” The CFO carrying the burden of talking to auditors, replies, “It’s money stupid, not that PR baloney.” Thanks, Microsoft Bind. You understand accountants perspiring. Do you have experience answering IRS questions about some calculations related to Puerto Rico?

Why would a professional trade outfit dismiss paper? My immediate and uninformed answer to this question is, “Cost. Stuff like printing, storage, fulfillment, and design cost money.” I would be wrong, of course. The ACM gives these reasons:

  • Be environmentally friendly. (Don’t ACM supporters use power sucking data centers often powered by coal?)(
  • Electronic publications have more features. (One example is a way to charge a person who wants to read an article and cut off at the bud the daring soul pumping money into a photocopy machine to have an article to read whilst taking a break from the coffee and mobile phone habit.)
  • Subscriptions are tanking.

I think the “subscriptions” bit is a way to say, “Print stuff is very expensive to produce and more expensive to sell.”

With the New York Times allegedly poised to use smart software to write its articles, when will the ACM dispense with member contributions?

Stephen E Arnold, November 6, 2023

By Golly, the Gray Lady Will Not Miss This AI Tech Revolution!

November 2, 2023

green-dino_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.

The technology beacon of the “real” newspaper is shining like a high-technology beacon. Flash, the New York Times Online. Flash, terminating the exclusive with LexisNexis. Flash. The shift to a — wait for it — a Web site. Flash. The in-house indexing system. Flash. Buying About.com. Flash. Doing podcasts. My goodness, the flashes have impaired my vision. And where are we today after labor strife, newsroom craziness, and a list of bestsellers that gets data from…? I don’t really know, and I just haven’t bothered to do some online poking around.


A real journalist of today uses smart software to write listicles for Buzzfeed, essays for high school students, and feature stories for certain high profile newspapers. Thanks for the drawing Microsoft Bing. Trite but okay.

I thought about the technology flashes from the Gray Lady’s beacon high atop its building sort of close to Times Square. Nice branding. I wonder if mobile phone users know why the tourist destination is called Times Square. Since I no longer work in New York, I have forgotten. I do remember the high intensity pinks and greens of a certain type of retail establishment. In fact, I used to know the fellow who created this design motif. Ah, you don’t remember. My hunch is that there are other factoids you and I won’t remember.

For example, what’s the byline on a New York Times’s story? I thought it was the name or names of the many people who worked long hours, made phone calls, visited specific locations, and sometimes visited the morgue (no, the newspaper morgue, not the “real” morgue where the bodies of compromised sources ended up).

If the information in  that estimable source Showbiz411.com is accurate, the Gray Lady may cite zeros and ones. The article is “The New York Times Help Wanted: Looking for an AI Editor to Start Publishing Stories. Six Figure Salary.” Now that’s an interesting assertion. A person like me might ask, “Why not let a recent college graduate crank out machine generated stories?” My assumption is that most people trying to meet a deadline and in sync with Taylor Swift will know about machine-generated information. But, if the story is true, here’s what’s up:

… it looks like the Times is going let bots do their journalism. They’re looking for “a senior editor to lead the newsroom’s efforts to ambitiously and responsibly make use of generative artificial intelligence.” I’m not kidding. How the mighty have fallen. It’s on their job listings.

The Showbiz411.com story allegedly quotes the Gray Lady’s help wanted ad as saying:

“This editor will be responsible for ensuring that The Times is a leader in GenAI innovation and its applications for journalism. They will lead our efforts to use GenAI tools in reader-facing ways as well as internally in the newsroom. To do so, they will shape the vision for how we approach this technology and will serve as the newsroom’s leading voice on its opportunity as well as its limits and risks. “

There are a bunch of requirements for this job. My instinct is that a few high school students could jump into this role. What’s the difference between a ChatGPT output about crossing the Delaware and writing a “real” news article about fashion trends seen at Otto’s Shrunken Head.

Several observations:

  • What does this ominous development mean to the accountants who will calculate the cost of “real” journalists versus a license to smart software? My thought is that the general reaction will be positive. Imagine: No vacays, no sick days, and no humanoid protests. The Promised Land has arrived.
  • How will the Gray Lady’s management team explain this cuddling up to smart software? Perhaps it is just one of those newsroom romances? On the other hand, what if something serious develops and the smart software moves in? Yipes.
  • What will “informed” reads think of stories crafted by the intellectual engine behind a high school student’s essay about great moments in American history? Perhaps the “informed” readers won’t care?

Exciting stuff in the world of real journalism down the street from Times Square and the furries, pickpockets, and gawkers from Ames, Iowa. I wonder if the hallucinating smart software will be as clever as the journalist who fabricates a story? Probably not. “Real” journalists do not shape, weaponized, or filter the actual factual. Is John Wiley & Sons ready to take the leap?

Stephen E Arnold, November 2, 2023


An Interesting Example of Real News. Yes, Real News

October 27, 2023

Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[2]Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.

I enjoy gathering information which may be disinformation. “The Secrets Hamas Knew about Israel’s Military” illustrates how “facts” can create fear, doubt, and uncertainty. I reside in rural Kentucky, and I have zero ability as a dinobaby to determine if the information published by DNYUZ is accurate or a clever way to deceive.

10 15 tell a secret

Believe me. Bigfoot is coming for your lunch. One young person says, “Bigfoot? Cool.” Thanks, MidJourney, descend that gradient.

Let’s look at several of the assertions in the write up. I will leave it to you, gentle reader, to figure out what’s what.

The first item is related to what appears the detail about what the attackers did; specifically, rode five motorcycles each carrying two individuals. As the motorcyclists headed toward their target, they shot at civilian vehicles. Then they made their way to an “unmanned  gate”, blew up the entrance, and “shot dead an unarmed Israelis soldier in a T shirt.”

My reaction to this was that the excess detail was baloney. If a group on motorcycles shot at me, I would alert the authorities. You know. A mobile phone. Also, the gate was unmanned. Hmmm. Each military base I have approached in my life was manned and had those nifty cameras recording the activity in the viewshed of the cameras. From my own experience, I know there are folks who watch the outputs of the cameras and there are other people who watch the watchers to make sure the odd game of Angry Birds does not distract the indifferent.

The second item is the color coded map. I have seen online posts showing a color coded print out with alleged information about the attack. Were these images “real” or fabricated along with the suggestion the attack had been planned a year or more in advance. I don’t know. Well, the map led the attackers to a fortified building with an unlocked door. Huh. As I recall, the doors in government facilities I have visited had the charming characteristic of locking automatically, even in areas with a separate security perimeter inside a security perimeter. Wandering around and going outside for a breath of fresh air was not a serendipitous action as I recall.

The third item is the “room filled with computers.” Yep, I lock access to my computer area in my home. My office, by the way, is underground. But it was a lucky day for bad actors because the staff were hiding under a bed. I don’t recall seeing a bed in or near a computer room. I have seen crappy chairs, crappy tables, and maybe a really crappy cot. But a bed under which two can hide? Nope.

The credibility of the story is attributed to the New York Times. And, by golly, the “real” journalists reviewed the footage and concluded it was the actual factual truth. Then the “real” journalists interviewed “real” Israelis about the Israeli video.

Okay. Several observations:

  1. Creating information which seems “real” but may be something else is easy.
  2. The outlet for the story is one that strikes me as a potential million dollar baby because it may have click magic.
  3. I am skeptical about the Netflix type of story line the article.

Net net: Dynuz, I admire your “real” news.

Stephen E Arnold, October 27, 2023

Racy Poetry Now Available

October 26, 2023

green-dino_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.

My hunch is that you either have forgotten or we not aware of the Wife of Bath. Well, let me tell you that was a hot read in the 16th century. Now you can review the pre-1600 manuscripts of Chaucer’s works. Many years ago my professor for a 15 week class in Chaucer was one of the editors of the then standard text of Chaucer’s poetry. I think his name was J.J. Campbell.


Microsoft’s art generator thinks that the Wife of Bath looks like this machine-generated image. I don’t think the dreamy pix matches my reconstruction of the Wife of Bath, who wore red socks and a method to generate hard cash on demand.

What he did, I think, was get students like me to undertake specific research and write papers about the topic. My assignments involved tracking references to the even more salacious volumes (at least in the 16th century) of the Apocrypha. Imagine the fun that was. The British Library has digitized the manuscripts and books. These are available at this link. How long will it take Alamy, Getty, and other image wizards to suck out the images and charge people for the use of content created centuries ago? Not long. Not long at all. By the way, watch out for friars in the woods.

Stephen E Arnold, October 26, 2023

Publishers and Remora: Choose the Right Host and Stop Complaining, Please

October 20, 2023

dino-10-19-timeline-333-fix-4_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software involved.

Today, let’s reflect on the suckerfish or remora. The fish attaches itself to a shark and feeds on scraps of the host’s meals or nibbles on the other parasites living on their food truck. Why think about a fish with a sucking disk on its head?

Navigate to “Silicon Valley Ditches News, Shaking an Unstable Industry.” The article reports as “real” news:

Many news companies have struggled to survive after the tech companies threw the industry’s business model into upheaval more than a decade ago. One lifeline was the traffic — and, by extension, advertising — that came from sites like Facebook and Twitter. Now that traffic is disappearing.

Translation: No traffic, no clicks. No clicks and no traffic mean reduced revenue. Why? The days of printed newspapers and magazines are over. Forget the costs of printing and distributing. Think about people visiting a Web site. No traffic means that advertisers will go where the readers are. Want news? Fire up a mobile phone and graze on the information available. Sure, some sites want money, but most people find free services. I like France24.com, but there are options galore.

Wikipedia provides a snap of a remora attached to a scuba diver. Smart remora hook on to a fish with presence.

The shift in content behavior has left traditional publishing companies with a challenge: Generating revenue. Newspapers specialized news services have tried a number tactics over the years. The problem is that the number of people who will pay for content is large, but finding those people and getting them to spit out a credit card is expensive. At the same time, the cost of generating “real” news is expensive as well.

In 1992, James B. Twitchell published Carnival Culture: The Trashing of Taste in America. The book offered insight into how America has embraced showmanship information. Dr. Twitchell’s book appeared 30 years ago. Today Google, Meta, and TikTok (among other digital first outfits) amplify the lowest common denominator of information. “Real” publishing aimed higher.

The reluctant adjustment by “white shoe” publishing outfits was to accept traffic and advertising revenue from users who relied on portable surveillance devices. Now the traffic generators have realized that “attention magnet” information is where the action is. Plus smart software operated by do-it-yourself experts provides a flow of information which the digital services can monetize. A digital “mom” will block the most egregious outputs. The goal is good enough.

The optimization of content shaping now emerging from high-technology giants is further marginalizing the “real” publishers.

Almost 45 years ago, the president of a company with a high revenue online business database asked me, “Do you think we could pull our service off the timesharing vendors and survive?” The idea was that a product popular on an intermediary service could be equally popular as a standalone commercial digital product.

I said, “No way.”

The reasons were obvious to me because my team had analyzed this question over the hill and around the barn several times. The intermediary aggregated information. Aggregated information acts like a magnet. A single online information resource does not have the same magnetic pull. Therefore, the cost to build traffic would exceed the financial capabilities of the standalone product. That’s why commercial database products were rolled up by large outfits like Reed Elsevier and a handful of other companies.

Maybe the fix for the plight of the New York Times and other “real” publishers anchored in print is to merge and fast. However, further consolidation of newspapers and book publishers takes time. As the New York Times “our hair is on fire” article points out:

Privately, a number of publishers have discussed what a post-Google traffic future may look like, and how to better prepare if Google’s A.I. products become more popular and further bury links to news publications… “Direct connections to your readership are obviously important,” Ms. LaFrance [Adrienne LaFrance, the executive editor of The Atlantic] said. “We as humans and readers should not be going only to three all-powerful, attention-consuming mega platforms to make us curious and informed.” She added: “In a way, this decline of the social web — it’s extraordinarily liberating.”

Yep, liberating. “Real” journalists can do TikToks and YouTube videos. A tiny percentage will become big stars and make big money until they don’t. The senior managers of “shaky” “real” publishing companies will innovate. Unfortunately start ups spawned by “real” publishing companies face the same daunting odds of any start up: A brutal attrition rate.

Net net: What will take the place of the old school approach to newspapers, magazines, and books. My suggestion is to examine smart software and the popular content on YouTube. One example is the MeidasTouch “network” on YouTube. Professional publishers take note. Newspaper and magazine publishers may also want to look at what Ben Meiselas and cohorts have achieved. Want a less intellectual approach to information dominance, ask a teenager about TikTok.

Yep, liberating because some of those in publishing will have to adapt because when X.com or another high technology alleged monopoly changes direction, the sucker fish has to go along for the ride or face a somewhat inhospitable environment, hunger, and probably a hungry predator from a bottom feeding investment group.

Stephen E Arnold, October 20, 2023

Nature Will Take Its Course among Academics

October 18, 2023

Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[2]Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.

How ChatGPT and Other AI Tools Could Disrupt Scientific Publishing: A World of AI-Assisted Writing and Reviewing Might Transform the Nature of the Scientific Paper” provides a respected publisher’s view of smart software. The viewshed is interesting, but it is different from my angle of sight. But “might”! How about “has”?

Peer reviewed publishing has been associated with backpatting, non-reproducible results, made-up data, recycled research, and grant grooming. The recent resignation of the president of Stanford University did not boost the image of academicians in my opinion.

The write up states:

The accessibility of generative AI tools could make it easier to whip up poor-quality papers and, at worst, compromise research integrity, says Daniel Hook, chief executive of Digital Science, a research-analytics firm in London. “Publishers are quite right to be scared,” says Hook. (Digital Science is part of Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, the majority shareholder in Nature’s publisher, Springer Nature; Nature’s news team is editorially independent.)

Hmmm. I like the word “scared.”

If you grind through the verbal fancy dancing, you will come to research results and the graphic reproduced below:


This graphic is from Nature, a magazine which tried hard not to publish non-reproducible results, fake science, or synthetic data. Would a write up from the former Stanford University president or the former head of the Harvard University ethics department find their way to Nature’s audience? I don’t know.

Missing from the list is the obvious use of smart software: Let it do the research. Let the LLM crank out summaries of dull PDF papers (citations). Let the AI spit out a draft. Graduate students or research assistants can add some touch ups. The scholar can then mail it off to an acquaintance at a prestigious journal, point out the citations which point to that individual’s “original” work, and hope for the best.

Several observations:

  • Peer reviewing is the realm of professional publishing. Money, not accuracy or removing bogus research, is the name of the game.
  • The tenure game means that academics who want to have life-time employment have to crank out “research” and pony up cash to get the article published. Sharks and sucker fish are an ecological necessity it seems.
  • In some disciplines like quantum computing or advanced mathematics, the number of people who can figure out if the article is on the money are few, far between, and often busy. Therefore, those who don’t know their keyboard’s escape key from a home’s “safe” room are ill equipped to render judgment.

Will this change? Not if those on tenure track or professional publishers have anything to say about the present system. The status quo works pretty well.

Net net: Social media is not the only channel for misinformation and fake data.

Stephen E Arnold, October 18, 2023

The Murdoch Effect: Outstanding Information 24×7

October 2, 2023

Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_tNote: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.

Rupert Murdoch is finally retiring and leaving his propaganda empire to his son Lachlan, who may or may not be even more right-wing than dear old dad. While other outlets ponder what this means for the future of News Corp, Gizmodo examines “All the Ways Rupert Murdoch Left his Grubby Fingerprints on Tech.” Writer Kyle Barr writes:

“You don’t become the biggest name in worldwide media without also becoming something of a major influence on tech. With his direct influence now waning, we can do a bit of an obituary on the mogul’s efforts to influence the world of tech, and how both his direct and unintended efforts have contributed to the shape of our current digital landscape. News Corp wanted to be the biggest name in digital media, and at every step it failed to compete with other big names, leaving it to rely on the bread and butter of its conservative news apparatus. Murdoch’s billions were involved in consolidating the world’s online media experience. His no-holds-barred operating philosophy would end up violating people’s privacy and setting us up for the state of current social media and content streaming. All the while, News Corp’s entities would struggle to find an actual, legitimate foothold in the digital frontier. Instead, Fox News and other Murdoch-owned brands facilitated a new media environment where disinformation ruled the day and truth was laid aside for conservative grievance.”

The write-up shares 11 indelible blotches Murdoch made on the tech landscape in slideshow form. A few key moments include buying up MySpace, thereby clearing the way for Facebook and its countless consequences; helping Mr. Trump rise to power; and buying and forwarding the decimation of one of my favorite childhood institutions, National Geographic. A couple noteworthy fumbles include investment in the fraudulent Theranos and the Dominion Lawsuit against Fox News. See the article for more of Barr’s examples. Now, we wonder, what marks will the junior Murdoch make?

Cynthia Murrell, October 2, 2023

If It Looks Like a Library, It Must Be Bad

September 25, 2023

The Internet Archive is the best digital archive that preserves the Internet’s past as well as the old media, out of print books, and more. The Internet Archive (IA) has been the subject of various legal battles regarding copyright infringement, especially in its project to scan and lend library books. Publishers Weekly details the results of the recent court battle: “Judgment Entered In Publishers, Internet Copyright Case.”

Judge John G. Koeltl issued a summary judgment decision that the Internet Archive did violate copyright and infringed on the holders’ rights. The IA and the plaintiffs reached an semi-agreement about distributing digital copies of copyrighted material but the details are not finalized. The IA plans to appeal the judge’s decision. A large continent of record labels are also suing the IA for violating music copyright.

The IA has a noble mission but it should respect copyright holders. The Subreddit DataHoarder has a swan song for the archive: “The Internet Archive Will Die-Any Serious Attempts At Archiving It?” User mikemikehindpart laments about the IA’s demise and blames the IA’s leadership for the potential shutdown. His biggest concern is about preserving the archive:

“I can’t really figure out any non-conspiratorial explanation as to why the IA people have not organized a grand archiving of the IA itself while there is still time. Is there any such initiative going on that one could join?”

User mikemikehindpart lambasts the IA leaders and claims they will go down in as self-proclaimed martyrs while dutifully handing over their hard drives if authorities come knocking. This user wants to preserve the archive especially defunct software, old Web sites, and other media that is not preserved anywhere else:

“fear is that the courts will soon order the site to be suspended while the trial is ongoing, so as to not cause further harm to the rights holders. Like turning off a switch, poof.

Eventually the entire archive will be ordered destroyed, not just the books and music. And piracy of popular books and music will continue like nothing happened, but all those website snapshots, blogs and lost software will simply disappear, like so many Yahoo! groups did.”

The comments vary on efforts how to start efforts to preserve the IA, to non-helpful non-sequiturs, and a few realistic posts that the IA may continue. The realistic posts agree the IA could continue if it stop sharing the copyrighted material and a consensus might be reached among IA and its “enemies.”

There are also comments that point to a serious truth: no one else is documenting the Internet, especially free stuff. One poster suggested that the Library of Congress should partner with the IA. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that idea.

Whitney Grace, September 21, 2023

Next Page »

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Meta