5 ms·

Curiously the author excluded their site from archive.org, which in a kind of ironic way is one less avenue for future preservation of their authorship.

water-your-self 3y ago
Not all things should be forever
kaycebasques 3y ago
To fully own these ideas, they should get rid of the copyright footer, also Freudian slip with my choice of "own these ideas"... the whole point is we can't own these ideas :P Rather I meant "to fully live the creed of the ideas they just submitted to the ether"
- 38 3y ago
  God forbid we want to stop people making money off our work right?
  - kaycebasques 3y ago
    The author seems to be saying that copyright is currently futile? I'm not following your comment. > The “moral rights” of the author. Copyright. Attribution. We have grown to assume these concepts as givens, but they are rapidly sliding into practical irrelevance in the age of AI and paywalls. To put any thoughtful labour into crafting words online today is to watch them get sucked up, repurposed, and often monetized by someone else.... Writers still write even when “authorship” functionally means nothing. And what they write still influences their world, with or without the universe dutifully paying homage to their bylines... So, what’s the fun of writing on the internet anymore? Well, if your aim is to be respected as an author, there’s probably not much fun to be had here at all. Don’t write online for fame and glory. Oblivion, obscurity and exploitation are all but guaranteed. Write here because ideas matter, not authorship.
    - 38 3y ago
      its futile against AI, but not humans.
altdataseller 3y ago
And the author didn't add ChatGPT Bot to their robots.txt either: https://jamesshelley.com/robots.txt https://jamesshelley.com/robots.txt So they let the good bot out, and the evil one in
- sotix 3y ago
  I was under the impression that archive.org doesn’t respect robots.txt, so in this case they’re the evil ones.
  - Springtime 3y ago
    That's archive.is not .org which does that.
  - Gigachad 3y ago
    It does. Even retroactively it will remove things previously cached.

water-your-self 3y ago

Not all things should be forever

kaycebasques 3y ago

To fully own these ideas, they should get rid of the copyright footer, also Freudian slip with my choice of "own these ideas"... the whole point is we can't own these ideas :P Rather I meant "to fully live the creed of the ideas they just submitted to the ether"

38 3y ago
God forbid we want to stop people making money off our work right?
- kaycebasques 3y ago
  The author seems to be saying that copyright is currently futile? I'm not following your comment. > The “moral rights” of the author. Copyright. Attribution. We have grown to assume these concepts as givens, but they are rapidly sliding into practical irrelevance in the age of AI and paywalls. To put any thoughtful labour into crafting words online today is to watch them get sucked up, repurposed, and often monetized by someone else.... Writers still write even when “authorship” functionally means nothing. And what they write still influences their world, with or without the universe dutifully paying homage to their bylines... So, what’s the fun of writing on the internet anymore? Well, if your aim is to be respected as an author, there’s probably not much fun to be had here at all. Don’t write online for fame and glory. Oblivion, obscurity and exploitation are all but guaranteed. Write here because ideas matter, not authorship.
  - 38 3y ago
    its futile against AI, but not humans.

altdataseller 3y ago

And the author didn't add ChatGPT Bot to their robots.txt either: https://jamesshelley.com/robots.txt https://jamesshelley.com/robots.txt So they let the good bot out, and the evil one in

sotix 3y ago
I was under the impression that archive.org doesn’t respect robots.txt, so in this case they’re the evil ones.
- Springtime 3y ago
  That's archive.is not .org which does that.
- Gigachad 3y ago
  It does. Even retroactively it will remove things previously cached.