Just a reminder that vice hacked archiving services, and that this was an issue in 2017 but you guys ignored me then :)

Let me walk you through a possible series of events.
>write an article for website
>post article to website
>oh fuck i made a mistake
>write correction to article
>post corrected article to website
>(time passes)
>someone decides they don't like you
>someone points to the wayback version of the original
v is guilty of this all the time with media outlets they don't like. the fig leaf is that they don't want to drive traffic to sites they dont like, because it's 1996 and websites get paid money for everyone who sees their banner ads. lol

hello, welcome to the r9k tech support board

basically they write off any criticism of their lazy journalistic practices

i'm a millennial and desu idk of anyone who reads vice anymore, nobody's read them or watched their youtube channel since like 2012

You know this meme is unironic and actually made by a shit eating poof cos the code is shit

How about taking some responsibility for the shit you publish, Vice?

I wonder what they published and how it was "manipulated", though.

What's actually happening is that Vice publishes misinformation on purpose to garner clicks and therefore ad money and later, once the money stops flowing, ""corrects"" the article
Archiving their shit proved that, which is why they disabled it

They should just rename Vice Media to "We think Everything can be solved by Communism" and just be straight up about their agenda

taking responsibility means correcting and updating things

i don't like it so it's misinformation
their website uses the 1998 flashing banner ad model

>taking responsibility means correcting and updating things
it more importantly means double checking before you click "publish" and also returning any ill gotten gains from the clicks you received while you had false information up that you were purporting to be true

SVD.se is a Swedish right wing newspaper lol

>it more importantly means double checking before you click "publish"
i dunno what to say to you. mistakes happen, people fuck up. the unethical thing to do, especially if it causes a shitstorm, would be to quietly disappear the article and pretend it never existed. the ethical to do would be to update the article with a correction and an explanation.

>returning any ill gotten gains from the clicks you received
why, were they stolen from you haha

If I bought a newspaper that served 90% wrong information and had to buy the next published one to find out the previous one was full of shit you better believe I'd want my money back

Believing in facts, history, and having accountability is a right wing idea.

Fake news back then fake news now

>mistakes happen
yes they do, and when there are no consequences mistakes tend to repeat themselves. on the contrary, when there are consequences mistakes tend to be preempted by self-corrective action.

that's actually, literally how newspapers used to work. which is why you used to have many versions of the same article for things like sports results. they print corrections in the next edition (usually in a little tiny teeny box on page 16 or something)

>taking responsibility means correcting and updating things
Yeah but also being honest about the errors made.

This is your mind on the far-left political AIDS.

>when there are no consequences mistakes tend to repeat themselves
well generally if there's a correction issued, someone noticed the mistake and sought to correct it. i suppose it's a matter of faith whether you take that to mean 'someone noticed they fucked up and will get shouted at by the boss' or 'some dastardly son of a bitch said a lie on purpose to make me mad, oh wait they fixed it that rat bastard stole my clicks'

Note the key difference here between a "little tiny teeny box" and every other article containing misinformation

>Same way nazis think everything bad is the result of the jew
_donald

Attached: 41E3KHQXFKL._SX315_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (317x474, 27K)

the chinks actually call western leftism political AIDs because "it doesn't kill you, it just makes your mind weak to other ideas that will kill you"

ok so your issue here is with how you feel that the publication's journalistic standards don't meet your own. that's a valid opinion but the meat of the issue is 'website doesn't want people linking to out-of-date, incorrect, outdated articles for which a correction has been issued'

It's also possible the screenshot is fake and gay.

actually, you can trust your friends on Jow Forums to never tell you lies

im saying this a joke but i'm 100% stone cold dead certain people think this way on some deep-down brain level

>get incredibly triggered by a meme
>it explodes
>turn it around on them that'll show them
>in comparison, they dont' give a fuck
Makes me smile.

It's all about propaganda and the desire to rewrite history. If you outright lie and you're exposed for that lie and you pretend you never told the lie in the first place then it's inconvenient to have a bunch of archives showing what was originally put out there.

To illustrate how bad it can be, two teens got their heads cut off and the Swedish state media claimed they got scratches on their necks. Yes, really. There is a slight difference between getting a scratch on your neck and having your head chopped off. What do you do when a video of the beheading goes somewhat viral? a) claim it's illegal to share that video and b) remove all articles talking about them getting a scratch on the neck.

>>archiving the web is right-wing now
Yep. There is no more right or left. There are nationalists and those who wish to see the world destroyed. There are those who want to protect their own cultures and traditions and those who want all cultures to be smashed together and destroyed.

The media, banks, and the rest of the globohomo leviathan are evil, and they should be destroyed.

Attached: 1547693183461.jpg (415x381, 58K)

>this thread

Attached: 1547051665550.jpg (600x532, 40K)

>culture of critique
I raise you one "The International Jew" by Henry Ford.

Attached: 61IyaRp3LDL.jpg (667x1000, 98K)

That Facebook screencap is fake though

Hello, Vice employee. Since you've decided that you're afraid of the archival services keeping a record of your lies, we're just going to use screenshots. Therefore OP's screenshot is entirely valid. You made your bed, now lay in it, fag.

Attached: ede2b35ab00e4365be8e199112a17567.jpg (363x550, 23K)

How is your example different from digging up tweets or comments from ten years ago or three years ago and assume you hold that same current opinion and then write a op-Ed article on said opinions and by doing that it destroys your life. Why do they get to say sorry you can’t see what we said previously to hold us accountable but we can dig through your life and do the same thing.

Attached: 7B3D4ECB-7C94-4F10-9DBA-2615CE292249.jpg (385x385, 21K)

That is kind of strange, but I would buy explaination. All kinds of organizations engage in strange activity...

But we do live in such a world.

Take your pills, geez

Whoever faked that post did a really shit job. Did none of you see the random capitalization of words in the middle of sentences? Regardless of how shit they are, Vice still has a style guide all their writers follow, I'm sure.

Leftist news outlets have woman writes who couldn't give a shit about styling.

I'll believe anything, as long as I agree with what it's saying

Leftists know that they're fucking wrong about everything and want to abolish freedom of speech and information. That's the only way they'll win.

National Socialist Germany was autistic about taking notes of everything that they could use or were using. After the ebil nazis were confused for being right wingers by idiot democrats, they're afraid of any form of note taking that they can't directly control

>that Facebook post
The fuck? The point of journalism is to hold people accountable, not blatantly tell everyone you won't let anyone hold you accountable!

>waybackmachine
>alt-right
What kool-aid are they drinking?

>left media
This problem is solving itself by having its audience rapidly disintegrating. At this point there are more people watching cooking shows than left news, true story. Also zoomers are conservative, that's good to know too.

If youdidn't figure out the screenshot is fake, you're an imbecile.

kill all leftists

>>>/twitter/

fake screenshot faggot, back to Plebbit with you

>I can't have argumentation without pathetically faking what my enemies are saying

Weird times when a screenshot like that (if fake) could as well have been real

fuck commies

No one in the history of the world called an archive service racist. It's pathetic to fake a screenshot and even more pathetic to fall for fake news.
>FAKE NEWS
>FAKE NEWS
>FAKE NEWS

samefag

dont care if it's fake i still hate VICE for being a massive propaganda tool

Attached: 1524493929210.jpg (736x873, 128K)

don't take your HRT pills tranny faggot
just kill yourself

>Vice is a massive propaganda tool (it is)
>But we being engaged because of propaganda fake screenshot is totally logical and organic!
>OP IS FAKE NEWS
>OP IS FAKE NEWS
>OP IS FAKE NEWS

It isn't pathetic. At this point it's impossible to guess what they did or did not say. Plus all it takes is one stupid intern with access to the account to publish a stupid tweet.
Can you prove the screenshot is fake and not just a tweet they deleted?

>we
Jow Forums is not an organization with vetted members like VICE is. plus see

Can you prove any of the 100s of tweets you get when searching 'Trump fake tweets' is not really just a deleted tweet?
Manipulating text is easy. Either link to source or stfu.

>but you guys ignored me then
well yeah, cause vice a shit and read only by twitter trannies with anime avatars.

>quickly edits source
its almost like the entire point of this thread went over your head.

Because the ethical way to correct an article is to actually disclose the modifications. What they do is they change the article without telling the reader.

Wtf is this shit?
I'm a liberal (more of a leftist) myself, but I don't see how archiving is right-wing?
What else? Are colors right-wing now? Are sounds right-wing?
Wtf is wrong with people?

On a side note, OP; blocking archive.org is not "hacking". In fact, archive.org explains on their website how you can block them if you don't want them archiving your website. It's not "hacking", lol; it's merely editing robots.txt and blocking certain user-agents.

I'm not the one claiming any one of them is fake and calling people pathetic for believing it might be real.

samefag
>SCREENSHOT IS FAKE NEWS
>SCREENSHOT IS FAKE NEWS
>SCREENSHOT IS FAKE NEWS

> "People are posting our exposing shit without giving us a chance to sweep it under the rug."

God damn I am laughing

I know how to inspect and modify web elements too, OP.
We should start a club, maybe.

Do you even know what a samefag is, or are you just a PR agent for VICE copying what other people do and trying to fit in?

>millennial news source

Attached: My-Cringe-Art (Smoothie-Wolf) _ DeviantArt.jpg (700x332, 12K)

>right wing archiving sites

heaven forbid somebody be able to see what our previous opinions were. hahahahahhaa.... history is right wing.

Attached: hahahahahaha.png (349x278, 47K)

>write article with bullshit in it to sway public opinion
>get called on your bullshit
>change your article and say it never happened
>get called on your bullshit again by someone linking an archive
>new article: right wing nazi racists (anyone who disagrees with them) are using archive sites so we're blocking them and here's why that's a good thing

The thing is that people can understand honest errors in their news and respect a newspaper that issues a correction. That correction doesn't destroy the previous versions and issuing the correction actually emphasizes that an error was made. An honest journalistic source is okay with this process because it shows their readers that they've transparent and care about accuracy.

The other thing is that people can notice patterns and realize when errors aren't honest. When people notice a pattern of inaccuracy in your reporting you have two choice. One is to correct the problem. The other is to cover up the problem. Blocking archiving doesn't correct a problem. It covers up the problem. If it's successful then it removes the incentive to ever correct the problem in the first place. It breaks the feedback loop between reader and journalist.

Attached: vicejournalism.webm (720x404, 619K)