As A Final Fuck You To Free Speech On Tumblr, Verizon Blocked Archivists
from the seriously-guys? dept
By now, of course, you're aware that the Verizon-owned Tumblr (which was bought by Yahoo, which was bought by Verizon and merged into "Oath" with AOL and other no longer relevant properties) has suddenly decided that nothing sexy is allowed on its servers. This took many by surprise because apparently a huge percentage of Tumblr was used by people to post somewhat racy content. Knowing that a bunch of content was about to disappear, the famed Archive Team sprung into action -- as they've done many times in the past. They set out to archive as much of the content on Tumblr that was set to be disappeared down the memory hole as possible... and it turns out that Verizon decided as a final "fuck you" to cut them off. Jason Scott, the mastermind behind the Archive Team announced over the weekend that Verizon appeared to be blocking their IPs:
GOOD MORNING INTERNET
This morning, Tumblr mass IP-banned entire swaths of @archiveteam volunteers and warrior instances. Some of our folks will do some work to see if they can get a little more out, but Tumblr has spoken: Get the hell off our lawn, we got some deletin' to do. pic.twitter.com/CrDCaSoPuR
— Jason Scott (@textfiles) December 15, 2018
On Sunday, Scott announced that the Archive Team has figured out a way to get past the blocks:
why look at that the archiving of tumblr restarted how did that happen must be a bug surely a crack team of activist archivists didn't see an ip block as a small setback and then turned everything up to 11 pic.twitter.com/5H7GoJon70
— Jason Scott (@textfiles) December 16, 2018
Still, this is a pretty fucked up thing for Verizon to do. It's one thing to decide to completely change the kind of content you host. That's their call. But, at the very least, allow the people who focus on archiving the internet for historical purposes the chance to actually do what they do best. Blocking the Archive Team is a truly obnoxious move, cementing Verizon's reputation as really not caring one bit about the damage the company does.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: archive team, archives, blocking, tumblr
Companies: tumblr, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A more pointed criticism of this decision: The works of queer people were most likely deleted first—and forever, if there were no backups beforehand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem...
I have been in tech for 40+ years and this move to "cloud" is the worse thing that's happened to tech since the copy protected floppy disc or software dongle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem...
That is, in part, why we have a resurgence of a “own your content” mindset via the IndieWeb movement. Tumblr can’t delete your content if it’s not on Tumblr in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem...
Even the best intentions often down't survive the real world. Witness what happened to PINAC -- the founder got locked out of his own site by partners. All it takes is one argument and a fit of ego, and suddenly one person steals the content of dozens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem...
Even if you can't host it on your own hardware, you can keep backups locally so that you can reupload should your current hosting location decide to shoot itself in the foot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem...
And people are falling all over themselves to embrace it in the name of convenience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem...
Also, if you think "the cloud" is the problem here, I'd like to present decades of dealing with people who never bothered with backups, backed up but stored their floppies on magnetic surfaces and all sorts of other incidents vs. the people I know who managed to retrieve their data because their iTunes/Google/Dropbox/whatever account saved it all without them realising they had it set up.
The initial point of controlling your own content is valid, but let's not pretend that people losing their work because something messed up is a new thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem...
A harsher lesson than many of us older people learned when we lost our precious floppies filled with 50x50pixel heavily compressed porn images when everyone together loses years and upon years of unbackedup work.
But yes, clouds aren't the problem. It's trusting the cloud to always do right by you is the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem...
Age also has nothing to do with it, though, except there's been less time to experience a serious data loss
"something isn't a backup until you test it"
...and general domestic users will never, ever do such a thing. If you're applying good IT working practice to either home PC users back in the days of floppies or to users of online services now, you're seriously overestimating the general public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem...
But, that is not the problem. The "cloud" (read large IT service providers) control access to your data, and know who is accessing it and when, which then can then give to govt, sold, or have its access restrictions changed.
If you have someone else to this "hostingish-cloudy-fun" for you, you need to establish a trust relationship with them, or have lots of money to sue them if they do dodgy things or break contract.
What we have seen again and again is the as large IT service companies start to gather power, their "hosting" behaviour starts to have politics thrown into the pot. Then its about if your "content" matches existing political rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem...
...and the average consumer never will. They didn't when all you had to do was store a single floppy somewhere safe (or even remember to save to that disk before turning the PC off at the plug - I've seen it all), and they certainly won't when it's automated for them 99.999% of the time.
"If you have someone else to this "hostingish-cloudy-fun" for you"
...which the average consumer always has and always will. Hell, in a way we're not even talking a change in company here. The concerns are essentially the same whether you were using the eventual Yahoo product Geocities in the late 90s or the eventual Yahoo product Tumblr in the late 2010s. The only real core difference is the number of users now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem...
...and the average consumer never will. They didn't when all you had to do was store a single floppy somewhere safe (or even remember to save to that disk before turning the PC off at the plug - I've seen it all), and they certainly won't when it's automated for them 99.999% of the time.
Unfortunately that seems to be a lesson everyone has to learn the hard way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem...
Not true in all cases. DLC, and digital "purchases" for game consoles can't be backed up in any meaningful way. As I understand it, you can make a copy of it and even restore it if the hard drive dies and needs to be replaced, but if the console itself dies and you buy a new one, your backups are useless because they can't be restored to a console with a different ID than they were created on. Re-downloading the content is your only option in such cases, assuming it's still available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The 'Fuck You' standard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The 'Fuck You' standard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They did nazi that coming
You guys keep saying that like it’s actually true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They did nazi that coming
So is Sam Harris now suddenly a Nazi?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/17/sam-harris-drops-patreon-author-rips-tr ust-and-saf
Jordan Peterson revealed that he had already been setting up a censorship-free crowdfunding platform that would not be vulnerable to PayPal and other ban-happy payment processors, after Subscribestar was immediately crippled this way shortly after Patreon boycotters and outcasts alike flooded the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They did nazi that coming
Suddenly? No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They did nazi that coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They did nazi that coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They did nazi that coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They did nazi that coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They did nazi that coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They did nazi that coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They did nazi that coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They did nazi that coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They did nazi that coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They did nazi that coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cartel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They did nazi that coming
And now another top-ranked Patreon member Sword & Scale has announced plans to quit the site entirely as soon as Peterson's crowdfunding project is up and running:
https://twitter.com/SwordAndScale/status/1074934600269524992
Who would have ever guessed that Patreon was such a snakepit of Nazis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They did nazi that coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they should all go back to business school. Or atleast go back to the drawing board for a new plan.
They keep trying to use a screwdriver on a rivet and wonder why it's not working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
or kindergarten
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunately, reality is more often the other way around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Probably they saw the could still make a profit even after deleting NSFW content.
Now, what I think they did not take into account was relevance. Why does the internet know Tumblr if it is not for the LGBTQ+(I dunno how the acronym is supposed to be written right now) community(that usually is very open about sexuality), the furry community and the porn artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, I'm convinced that Verizon have their customers' interests in mind, all the time.
Their customers being the advertisers, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunately, a modern business school will tell them they're on the right track and that they should double down. Business schools went to heck when they adopted the "greed is good" credo. Everything else grew from that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm betting this is all an intentional prelude to Tumblr shutting down completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not sure if it was intentional, but with the disaster the rule change has been it might end up that way anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Activist journalists spinning lies to go after the jobs and source of revenue for citizens who argue legally for issues important to them.
The destruction of historical record on the internet to wipe away these caches of information that can spread awareness or used to research complicated issues.
Within the stated goal of eliminating 'sexy' content on Tumlr, there is a huge amount of unrelated material disappearing along with it quietly and designed to go without notice.
The trap is sprung to curtail the internet. We see now that its been replaced with an AOL or Cable -type network with financial institutions and tech giants hand-in-hand working to strangle and site that recognizes legal speech outside central control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or is that only okay if Google or Facebook own the platform engaging in censorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Fuck You" is protected speech, as I'm sure Mike's said more than once here. So, yeah, they can do it, and luckily Mike has another platform on which to bitch about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It's one thing to decide to completely change the kind of content you host. That's their call."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right.
Nobody has a right to free speech on Tumblr. Tumblr has a legal right to take down content on its service, for any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. Tumblr is absolutely, 100% within its legal rights here.
Are you arguing that just because something is legal, that means nobody should criticize it?
If so, great. This article is legal, therefore you should shut the fuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"They have the legal right to do this" is not equivalent to "they should do this." You can simultaneously believe that a thing (1) is legal, (2) *should* be legal, and (3) is not a good idea.
Permit me to demonstrate.
It is legal for you to hit yourself in the face with a hammer, very hard.
Do you understand the difference between something being legal and something being a good thing to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bad example.
Hey blue, don't listen to Thad! Hitting yourself in the face with a hammer would be a great idea -- all the CEOs are doing it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:one weird trick to see god
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
...aaaand almost every Techdirt reader starts chanting "Please say no! Please say no!" in their head...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Within that, though: there's a wide range of legal but stupid, which is what this article is about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speaking of which, Verizon could decide to double-down on dickery and go after the archivists under the CFA. The IP blocking clearly demonstrates intent to prevent users at those locations from accessing the affected pages and they admit to circumventing those restrictions on twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please provide proof of your claim and the necessary citations required for verifying your evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: only okay if Google or Facebook own the platform
Whether that’s a good business strategy is another question entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rember when you promised to leave forever?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But it's their platform and you have no right to free speech on it, right Mike?
Yes, as stated in the post you appear not to have read.
Or is that only okay if Google or Facebook own the platform engaging in censorship?
Did you even read or did you so eagerly rush here with a "gotcha" that you look like someone who didn't read, nor understand, the actual post? Ah, right, the latter.
The platforms have every right to host or not host what they want. And I have every right to criticize the decisions they make over it, explaining why doing what they did was a dick move -- just as I've criticized moderation decisions by Google and Facebook that were bad (not that you will admit that I regularly criticize both companies -- because it doesn't fit your "strawman Mike" that you like to knock down).
I have been entirely consistent, as basically everyone here but you seems to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Reasonably consistent, but not entirely consistent. The issue of regulating ISPs and forcing "network neutrality" on them certainly comes to mind. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but it serves to poison any appearance of maintaining an impartial principled stand when insisting that the government must maintain a complete hands-off policy with some private companies but a rigorous hands-on policy with others.
But then many of us non-zealots don't really believe in strict absolutes anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I've never seen any hypocrisy there, except when people have to completely misrepresent what's actually being said. For example, there's no problem stating that the government should be protecting net neutrality while keeping their hands out of search results and indexing. Those are two completely different issues, so require two totally different responses.
Now, it would be hypocritical if it was said that Comcast needs to be forced to obey net neutrality but not Google Fiber, or that it was OK to censor Bing results but not Google's. But to say ISPs need to be regulated for the public good, but less regulation is appropriate for search results is not a problem. It only appears to be a problem if you pretend that the different industry sectors are not part of the equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The use of a platform doesn't need regulation since users almost always have a choice of switching to a comparable one, calling for regulation of an captive infrastructure market that's almost completely broken where users have near zero choice is something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also note that there has never been (or proposed to be) a "rigorous hands-on policy" regarding net neutrality. The rules that were in place were pretty basic consumer protections that would be easy to follow for any company not obsessed with fucking over their customers for every penny. They're also rules most countries don't even need because of healthy competition in their markets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"By playing this video you agree to Twitter's use of cookies
This use may include analytics, personalization, and ads."
...which I absolutely don't, so I absolutely won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.tubeoffline.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://blog.archive.org/author/jasonscott/
The guy who manages archives at the Library of Congress Approved Archive.org?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...as well as archiveteram.org, the service he specifically mentions in the tweets. Yes. So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, maybe not, but who knows? I'd sure rather it wasn't even a possibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. That's why Verizon bought Yahoo. Because it wanted to blackmail people on Tumblr.
Why do some people see a company do something dumb and immediately assume it's part of some brilliant secret play instead of just, y'know, dumb?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because there's a lot of that going around these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon wants to rebuild Tumblr & allowing people to archive what was there would keep coming back to bite them cutting ad revenue.
Now the app can stay in the apple walled garden & advertisers will be okay with advertising on a new porn free Tumblr!!!
Why would advertisers pay to advertise to a platform with no users?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's more on that (note: the following link contains nonsexual images of bare breasts): Tumblr's porn filter blocked Tumblr's images illustrating what Tumblr's porn filter won't block
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As disastrous as their move is I really do have to thank them for how they've implemented it. You cannot pay for that kind of comedy, and here they are, providing it for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More likely it looked like a bot with high traffic
And one bot looks like any other bot to the automated systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the lesson is
Reuploading is just one of those things you better learn to deal with or stick to paper mediums.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the lesson is
Actually, Tumblr provides a method of retrieving all your posts and also all of your liked posts (probably as a GDPR requirement). This story is about external access and archiving by blog readers, not blog owners.
So, no, that's not a lesson to be learned from this. It's a good lesson, just not a relevant one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
put the blame on Apple
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/20/18104366/tumblr-ios-app-child-pornography-removed-from-app -store
https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/13/18139940/tumblr-back-apple-app-store-adult-content-porn-ba n
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: put the blame on Apple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tumblr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]