Back when netflix first started, I subscribed to the 4 dvd plan. I’d rip and burn a copy of every movie that came through the house (if we liked it, that is). I was one of the few friends that had a DVD-R drive, and would make copies on request.
I still have an old case logic disk book completely filled with burnt dvds. I just built my first computer that doesn’t have a removable-disk drive, and with that, I no longer have any way to play dvds/blu-rays. Not one disc player in the whole house.
A convoy s3 flashlight with uv emitter, about $15 US.
I have a geriatric puppy who’s starting to “leak”, and this flashlight is really quick and easy to tell where needs to be cleaned up. Way easier than shining a regular light, missing and slipping on a puddle.
It exists, it’s called a robots.txt file that the developers can put into place, and then bots like the webarchive crawler will ignore the content.
And therein lies the issue: if you place a robots.txt out for the content, all bots will ignore the content, including search engine indexers.
So huge publishers want it both ways, they want to be indexed, but they don’t want the content to be archived.
If the NYT is serious about not wanting to have their content on the webarchive but still want humans to see it, the solution is simple: Put that content behind a login! But the NYT doesn’t want to do that, since then they’ll lose out on the ad revenue of having regular people load their website.
I think in the case of the article here though, the motivation is a bit more nefarious, in that the NYT et al simply don’t want to be held accountable. So there’s a choice to be had for them, either retain the privilege of being regarded as serious journalism, or act like a bunch of hacks that can’t be relied upon.