Okay, so the reason why the concept of the "Holy Land only for Jewish" is so baffling is that the land upon which the designation falls on has always been a multicultural hub of Judaic religious...
Okay, so the reason why the concept of the "Holy Land only for Jewish" is so baffling is that the land upon which the designation falls on has always been a multicultural hub of Judaic religious orders as well as non-Judaic religious orders. The so-called "Jewish diaspora" is just a framing device used so that one can claim to be "returning home to what's rightfully theirs." But it wasn't only the Jews who had a diaspora. Many had left the region alongside the Jews, so to claim that the Jewish diaspora was the diaspora is a failure to acknowledge actual history and reality but rather tunnel vision into a narrative. Hence why there is a very good background, historical, and contextual reason why the concept of a "Holy Land only for the Jews" was never going to work (notwithstanding that powers come and fall all over the world). It is a forceful grab.
Imagine a communal living space. One of the people who was born there leaves and maybe even starts a family elsewhere. One day the person's lineage comes back and says, "My lineage comes from here, so this is mine now," without realizing their foreparents weren't the only ones living there. Granted, there is a mix of manifest destiny and will of God thrown into the mix, but everyone claims those.
Personally, I think everyone is just sick of this conflict. It's like a storyline made by the Westerners. I've watched the older videos of Gaza being bombed and it's literally the same progression. A reporter, while reporting in Gaza, has a bomb explode onto a building behind them (there was one many years ago, and just one similar a few days ago). Like, what the? It all feels like a stage play.
The more and more I consider the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the more I come to the conclusion that a one-state solution is probably the only solution that has a chance to succeed long-term. A...
The more and more I consider the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the more I come to the conclusion that a one-state solution is probably the only solution that has a chance to succeed long-term. A two-state solution will not ultimately solve any problems as extremists on either side are not going to settle for this and the Palestinians will continue to retain enmity for the Israeli state and people. Even if Israel were able to magically deport all Palestinians they'd still be dealing with terrorism and antagonism from the Arab world for generations if not forever, Arabs won't conveniently forget what happened to the Palestinians even if Israel is able to normalize relations with its neighbors.
Israel/Palestine needs to implement some sort of staged plan to first reach a ceasefire, ensure security for both sides, calm tensions, and slowly build trust. Eventually this needs to culminate in a single state for Israelis and Palestinians with strong constitutional protections for equality of all peoples that is underwritten by both US and Arabe security agreements.
I understand people want to read the article, but I really hate to see the web archive abused like this. It's a useful tool for a ton of other stuff and using it to pirate content will probably...
I understand people want to read the article, but I really hate to see the web archive abused like this. It's a useful tool for a ton of other stuff and using it to pirate content will probably lead to it getting cut off from large portions of the internet.
I think it is better to use archive.md who seem to be more actively aiming to circumvent paywalls. To be fair, this article is >20 years old, so I think it is unlikely that NYTimes will care too...
I think it is better to use archive.md who seem to be more actively aiming to circumvent paywalls.
To be fair, this article is >20 years old, so I think it is unlikely that NYTimes will care too much about it in this case (many libraries keep records of press publications for example, so there is precedent for this kind of archiving).
Publications that don't want their works to be spread freely via archive sites have a simple option: Hard paywall. Force everything behind a login. But they don't do that because they know the...
Publications that don't want their works to be spread freely via archive sites have a simple option: Hard paywall. Force everything behind a login.
But they don't do that because they know the real truth: They don't have a monopoly on news and editorials, and doing so would relegate them to oblivion.
So its better for them to be de-facto free for anyone willing to hop the fence and look. It pays off via keeping them remotely relevant.
What kind of an argument is this? There is a link to the NYT article in the main post. You can access the article from their site. What is the point of posting a link to an archived copy of the...
What kind of an argument is this? There is a link to the NYT article in the main post. You can access the article from their site.
What is the point of posting a link to an archived copy of the article? Is it because the NYT version is behind a paywall?
And then you say, "It's okay to pirate the article because if they cared it would be behind a paywall."
No, it's behind a soft paywall: It's free to see if you are a robot or haven't hit a certain number of requisite user tracking features. A hard paywall means its not accessible outside the login,...
No, it's behind a soft paywall: It's free to see if you are a robot or haven't hit a certain number of requisite user tracking features.
A hard paywall means its not accessible outside the login, for anybody, including web scrapers.
I'm saying they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the free publicity of being freely available, without being free.
It's explicitly deemed to be legal in the USA, a country extremely hostile to piracy. That tells me the courts are at least a little bit on my side.
There are paywall bypassing extensions out there, use them. I really don't like these archive links to bypass, same as 12ft.io. They're far easier to end up blocked by the original source, and as...
There are paywall bypassing extensions out there, use them. I really don't like these archive links to bypass, same as 12ft.io. They're far easier to end up blocked by the original source, and as you mentioned, may have a chilling effect on their ability to archive things.
Even on my phone I have Firefox with uBO and Tampermonkey with the userscript for Bypass Paywalls Clean loaded into it. Don't even need to sideload, run Nightly, or enable developer options to do so-- both TM and uBO are officially supported on Firefox for Android. With how techy the Tildes crowd leans, I am baffled at how few people seem to just install paywall bypass extensions on here.
Why install an extension when a link can do the same? Not every device is the same, extensions don't always work. Frankly, archive links are great for when the link in question is a small site...
Why install an extension when a link can do the same? Not every device is the same, extensions don't always work. Frankly, archive links are great for when the link in question is a small site that might get hugged to death.
Luckily these circumventions have been deemed legal in the USA, so while there may continue to be cat and mouse games, it won't be easily swatted down with lawyers.
Links can and do fail, and many of these archive sites don't work on networks using Cloudflare DNS servers due to weird tiffs between them and CF. You also don't run into the problem that 12ft.io...
Links can and do fail, and many of these archive sites don't work on networks using Cloudflare DNS servers due to weird tiffs between them and CF. You also don't run into the problem that 12ft.io did, where there are news sites that they won't bypass for you, either because they've been ordered to or paid off to.
It's a lot harder to completely get rid of a bypassing paywalls browser extension, than to take out a hosted service. What happens when an ISP (maybe not in the US, but I know this happens in Europe) is court ordered to block access to these sites on piracy grounds, for example?
Okay, so the reason why the concept of the "Holy Land only for Jewish" is so baffling is that the land upon which the designation falls on has always been a multicultural hub of Judaic religious orders as well as non-Judaic religious orders. The so-called "Jewish diaspora" is just a framing device used so that one can claim to be "returning home to what's rightfully theirs." But it wasn't only the Jews who had a diaspora. Many had left the region alongside the Jews, so to claim that the Jewish diaspora was the diaspora is a failure to acknowledge actual history and reality but rather tunnel vision into a narrative. Hence why there is a very good background, historical, and contextual reason why the concept of a "Holy Land only for the Jews" was never going to work (notwithstanding that powers come and fall all over the world). It is a forceful grab.
Imagine a communal living space. One of the people who was born there leaves and maybe even starts a family elsewhere. One day the person's lineage comes back and says, "My lineage comes from here, so this is mine now," without realizing their foreparents weren't the only ones living there. Granted, there is a mix of manifest destiny and will of God thrown into the mix, but everyone claims those.
Personally, I think everyone is just sick of this conflict. It's like a storyline made by the Westerners. I've watched the older videos of Gaza being bombed and it's literally the same progression. A reporter, while reporting in Gaza, has a bomb explode onto a building behind them (there was one many years ago, and just one similar a few days ago). Like, what the? It all feels like a stage play.
For context, Edward Saïd was one of the great political theorists of the 20th century (up there with Arendt, Berlin, etc).
The more and more I consider the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the more I come to the conclusion that a one-state solution is probably the only solution that has a chance to succeed long-term. A two-state solution will not ultimately solve any problems as extremists on either side are not going to settle for this and the Palestinians will continue to retain enmity for the Israeli state and people. Even if Israel were able to magically deport all Palestinians they'd still be dealing with terrorism and antagonism from the Arab world for generations if not forever, Arabs won't conveniently forget what happened to the Palestinians even if Israel is able to normalize relations with its neighbors.
Israel/Palestine needs to implement some sort of staged plan to first reach a ceasefire, ensure security for both sides, calm tensions, and slowly build trust. Eventually this needs to culminate in a single state for Israelis and Palestinians with strong constitutional protections for equality of all peoples that is underwritten by both US and Arabe security agreements.
Archive link:
https://archive.ph/wImYu
Changed to archive.md link
I understand people want to read the article, but I really hate to see the web archive abused like this. It's a useful tool for a ton of other stuff and using it to pirate content will probably lead to it getting cut off from large portions of the internet.
I think it is better to use archive.md who seem to be more actively aiming to circumvent paywalls.
To be fair, this article is >20 years old, so I think it is unlikely that NYTimes will care too much about it in this case (many libraries keep records of press publications for example, so there is precedent for this kind of archiving).
Publications that don't want their works to be spread freely via archive sites have a simple option: Hard paywall. Force everything behind a login.
But they don't do that because they know the real truth: They don't have a monopoly on news and editorials, and doing so would relegate them to oblivion.
So its better for them to be de-facto free for anyone willing to hop the fence and look. It pays off via keeping them remotely relevant.
What kind of an argument is this? There is a link to the NYT article in the main post. You can access the article from their site.
What is the point of posting a link to an archived copy of the article? Is it because the NYT version is behind a paywall?
And then you say, "It's okay to pirate the article because if they cared it would be behind a paywall."
No, it's behind a soft paywall: It's free to see if you are a robot or haven't hit a certain number of requisite user tracking features.
A hard paywall means its not accessible outside the login, for anybody, including web scrapers.
I'm saying they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the free publicity of being freely available, without being free.
It's explicitly deemed to be legal in the USA, a country extremely hostile to piracy. That tells me the courts are at least a little bit on my side.
There are paywall bypassing extensions out there, use them. I really don't like these archive links to bypass, same as 12ft.io. They're far easier to end up blocked by the original source, and as you mentioned, may have a chilling effect on their ability to archive things.
Even on my phone I have Firefox with uBO and Tampermonkey with the userscript for Bypass Paywalls Clean loaded into it. Don't even need to sideload, run Nightly, or enable developer options to do so-- both TM and uBO are officially supported on Firefox for Android. With how techy the Tildes crowd leans, I am baffled at how few people seem to just install paywall bypass extensions on here.
Why install an extension when a link can do the same? Not every device is the same, extensions don't always work. Frankly, archive links are great for when the link in question is a small site that might get hugged to death.
Luckily these circumventions have been deemed legal in the USA, so while there may continue to be cat and mouse games, it won't be easily swatted down with lawyers.
Links can and do fail, and many of these archive sites don't work on networks using Cloudflare DNS servers due to weird tiffs between them and CF. You also don't run into the problem that 12ft.io did, where there are news sites that they won't bypass for you, either because they've been ordered to or paid off to.
It's a lot harder to completely get rid of a bypassing paywalls browser extension, than to take out a hosted service. What happens when an ISP (maybe not in the US, but I know this happens in Europe) is court ordered to block access to these sites on piracy grounds, for example?