5 ms·
Sorry Appin, we're not taking down our article about your attempts to silence
- abirch 3y agoThe Streisand Effect is real. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Thank God Tech dirt stood up
- dannyobrien 3y agoFor those who don't get (the whole) reference, Mike Masnick, who founded and heads Techdirt, is the original coiner of the term "Streisand effect". He's also been legally targeted by those who want to silence critical coverage of their behaviour before, and received an EFF Pioneer Award in 2017 for his journalistic work (though he joked at the time "The sort of obvious interpretation to me is that this is an award for getting sued"). I don't know whether his acceptance speech is online somewhere but I remember it being a vivid description of the pressure legal threats have on people and businesses, even when they are ultimately dismissed. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/celebrating-2017-pioneer-awards https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/celebrating-2017-pione...
- Dalewyn 3y agoThe Streisand Effect is in full force alright: I never even heard of "Appin" until this thread.
- 2024throwaway 3y agoOr Rajat Khare. Noted sleezebag.
- satori99 3y agoIt was Techdirt founder, Mike Masnick, who first coined the term Streisand Effect 19 years ago: https://www.techdirt.com/2005/01/05/since-when-is-it-illegal-to-just-mention-a-trademark-online/ https://www.techdirt.com/2005/01/05/since-when-is-it-illegal...
- wolverine876 3y agoThat means they were effective (or you are generally missing important news). Reuters didn't stand up to them, as of maybe a week ago, and took down a story.
- Animats 3y agoRight. Now it's on Techdirt, Columbia Journalism Review, MuckRock, Politico, Daily Beast, Wikipedia, Wired...
- SturgeonsLaw 3y agoLove seeing people stand up to bullies. Techdirt has been fighting the good fight for a very long time.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dylan604 3y agoHey TechDirt! What's the point of making a image of text to embed in your site? Its text becomes blurry and hard to read compared to using an actual font. What a horrible decisions for legibility. But seriously, what's the thought process for a website to do this? Even embedded tweets are not pre-rendered images. Some one in some meeting decided that using a rasterized image would be awesomesauce. What kind of sick people were involved?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y agoI think it's a reasonable way to present it as evidence of what had been available from someone else's server rather than just words that are presented by their own server. From an accessibility perspective, it would be nice if they could ensure that a screen reader will start reading the text when it encounters the image but it otherwise seems to be a good reporting practice.
- dylan604 3y agoIf it was a scan of an actual document embedded into a webpage, then maybe we can say it's an acceptable format. But having some designer do a layout and then save it as a rasterized image so that it scales beyond original size so that it lowers the legibility of the text, then no, it is not a reasonable method.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago> scan of an actual document embedded into a webpage I see, download the HTML as provided by the server at the time. Then provide that separately and include the relevant text in the article. Yeah, that would be a better method.
- dylan604 3y agoWe've had full page documents as PDFs for a long long time now. This isn't new. It's just someone wanting to be fancy/trendy/whatevs without consideration that people use the web in ways other than the designers do.
- redcobra762 3y agoThe original Reuters story that was removed as a result of an Indian court ruling has been preserved by Distributed Denial of Secrets, a link to which can be found in the article.
- solsane 3y agoAnother reason to feel good about donating to the EFF.