On the other hand, it is now easier than ever to make copies of materials that we see. Famously, the internet never forgets, and even the smallest mistakes or slip-ups are retained in perpetuity, as long as someone is interested enough in keeping hold of the original copies. And there are a lot of organisations that are very interested in keeping hold of original copies.

I would argue that the opposite is true: it is now harder than ever to change the historical record, which is why we now talk about hypernormality and post-truth, where even if there is evidence for something, people will still lie and claim the opposite and be believed. We live with an abundance of evidence, and yet the Orwellian ability for people in charge to tell you one thing one day, and another thing the next, has never been stronger.

And I think you're again making the mistake of thinking of the printing press as a device for printing books or other materials designed to be long-lasting and valuable. In practice, the printing press brought about a revolution of flyers and pamphlets - ephemeral documents that were distributed one day and then abandoned the next. These things should change freely, and many never entered the historical record at all.

▲

SturgeonsLaw 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is why I think archive sites will be attacked by the powers that would like information to disappear when they want it to.

Perhaps they'll use a warped interpretation of copyright law to do it, or maybe something even more draconian like censorship laws with a punishment for publishing banned information.

Could they do it, technically? Not unless they controlled the entire world's networks, including those of countries with competing aims. Would that stop them from trying? As we've seen with the endless attacks on end to end encryption, I'm sure they'd give it a shot.

	▲	MrJohz 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think it's possible, though. Or at least, I think it's harder now than ever before. The internet isn't completely decentralised, but it's at least spread out enough that it's seriously difficult to shut down any one part of it, at least without being willing to take some serious authoritarian measures. Look at how difficult it's been for the most influential media companies in the world to fight piracy, for example. I genuinely think our society is one of the most censorship-resistant societies in history. This comes with its own problems (how do you deal with media that genuinely is harmful, like calls to violence or plots to abuse children?) but I think this is the tradeoff that one has to make when dealing with censorship and liberty. The more you make it difficult for the authorities to shut down good speech, the more difficult it becomes to protect against harmful speech.

▲

valenterry 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> On the other hand, it is now easier than ever to make copies of materials that we see.

Is it? I feel it's the other way around. For example, just 10 years ago, there were no apps that forbid me from taking screenshots. Copying CDs and DVDs was comparably easy, even for normal folks. How do I copy a Netflix episode again?

▲

MrJohz 3 days ago | parent [-]

I meant "now" in that sentence to refer to the internet era in general, in comparison with other technological leaps. But still, these protections are usually very limited, and fairly easy to circumvent. Most people I know might not be able to convince their laptop to let them screenshot Netflix, but they do normally know how to find pirated copies of the TV show they want to watch. Paying for the convenience of Netflix might still be worth it for them, but the ability to step beyond that should that convenience disappear is definitely there.

	▲	valenterry 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I agree with that first sentence, but I think the trend matters more than the average over a few decades. Also, you said "On the other hand, it is now easier than ever to make copies of materials that we see." - now you seem to be talking about finding a copy. But those are two very different things.

▲

bostik 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I'd like to think I'm not. In the past, at least there was an original "hard copy" - and any regime wanting to rewrite history would have to meticulously either eradicate any prints, or - as happened in the Eastern Bloc - they would have to physically rewrite history. Pages from books were lifted out, edited to suit the needs of the narrative, and then meticulously put back.

With online-only records any hard copies will be incidental. The source-of-truth for any record has always been online, and can be retroactively edited with much less fanfare. Incidentally, it will also be much easier to flood the world with the updated narrative.

Hell, we have Musk publicly advocating to edit old online material to suit the new, "more desirable" narrative.