It's been deleted by its author and archive sites are the only places where I can find copies. I've saved a copy for myself just in case. If you use an article like this as a source, it'd be nice if there were a copy somewhere.
I bought a DRM-free copy from the writer/director back when they offered it on their website. The main website is still there, but the whole purchase/download system is broken and those domain seem to have expired/been purchased by someone else. I almost lost my copy of this movie, but luckily I found it on one of my off-site backups.
People talk about how much content there is being created, but there's an incredibly amount of content that's being lost forever. Even if it's still out there, search monoculture (today we have Google/Bing/DDG where once we had Lycos, Hotbot, Altavisa, etc. etc.) can effectively keep content from being accessible. There might be something nice about the ephemeral nature of that content, but there's also something sad there as well.
To go back to your point, if someone publishes an article, it is nice to be able to see it again in the future. If they don't want it backed up, there are procedures like DMCA (if the author didn't publish the content to the public domain and the archiver is based in the US).
As a side note, we've already seen on here that the Right to be Forgotten is more about censorship than anything else.
Eventually we'll all go extinct, our sun will burn out, and everything that ever was and is will be lost. So preservation efforts really only go so far, and this brings up some more deep philosophical ideals about the ephemeral nature of what we produce more than anything else.
> if someone publishes an article, it is nice to be able to see it again in the future.
I think there's an important point here about the difference between access and attribution. People talking about the right to be forgotten are generally opposed to attribution - someone like the top-level poster wants to be able to un-claim a blog post. But people talking about archiving are split between attribution and access - wanting to simply be able to see content, regardless of where it came from.
Two of my favorite bloggers have deleted large swathes of their work, both for reasons I think are inapplicable to me. In one case, they got a job in medicine and removed lots of content that might be unoffensive generally, but could upset a hospital HR department. In the other case, I believe she was worried about the impact her work might have on suicidal people.
In each case, the author wanted to stop having a comprehensive, owned body of their writing, while I simply wanted access to the text. I could give a damn if they accept ownership of that writing - it had interesting ideas and I simply want to be able to read it again.
This isn't a distinction I see made often; work is either in its source location or archived in an attributed way. But there are some cases where I'd be quite happy to get un-attributed access to the actual content someone created.
This is an interesting article, if you liked I would reccomend heavily taking a look at Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence. Even though the book has it's own share of problems, it is an interesting approach to Artificial General Intelligence.
On the other points, I would believe this is related to the fact I personally (and I take most here) have spent way too much time on the internet on the past decade(s). I find it amusing the number of times I remember something I've seen or read in the past and how hard it can be to find it again. Or the number of broken links among old blog posts and articles.
Lastly, our lives are way too goddamn short. Thinking that far into the future is hardly productive in my opinion, even if you consider it can be very enlightening.
http://archive.li/fi5Xn
It's been deleted by its author and archive sites are the only places where I can find copies. I've saved a copy for myself just in case. If you use an article like this as a source, it'd be nice if there were a copy somewhere.
This is one of my favourite independent movies:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1527628
I bought a DRM-free copy from the writer/director back when they offered it on their website. The main website is still there, but the whole purchase/download system is broken and those domain seem to have expired/been purchased by someone else. I almost lost my copy of this movie, but luckily I found it on one of my off-site backups.
People talk about how much content there is being created, but there's an incredibly amount of content that's being lost forever. Even if it's still out there, search monoculture (today we have Google/Bing/DDG where once we had Lycos, Hotbot, Altavisa, etc. etc.) can effectively keep content from being accessible. There might be something nice about the ephemeral nature of that content, but there's also something sad there as well.
To go back to your point, if someone publishes an article, it is nice to be able to see it again in the future. If they don't want it backed up, there are procedures like DMCA (if the author didn't publish the content to the public domain and the archiver is based in the US).
As a side note, we've already seen on here that the Right to be Forgotten is more about censorship than anything else.
Eventually we'll all go extinct, our sun will burn out, and everything that ever was and is will be lost. So preservation efforts really only go so far, and this brings up some more deep philosophical ideals about the ephemeral nature of what we produce more than anything else.