I don't think you can even block it

don't archive services desguise the bots as regular users?

i don't know exactly how archive.is does it, but it's not hard to conceive of unblockable methods.

I do know that some websites have on occasion succeeded in blocking archive.is though. NYT occasionally succeeds, at least for a while.

i found stuff from early 2017 on that vice/archive thing... so even if it is a real screenshot, it most certainly is not actually in effect

i miss jontron

There is always a way to circumnavigate those blocks. I use archive.is a lot. When I find one, I run it though https://via.hypothes.is . Archive.is does this automatically for some websites like Vice.

You can also get past these blocks sometimes by using links from different sources. For example they may have archive blocked from archiving a page directly, but if you do it from a twitter link or Facebook link it sometimes bypasses them. Just copy the link directly from their tweets. Sometimes it’s the opposite. For a bit CNN money wouldn’t let me archive it from the twitter link, but if I used google to get to the story I could .

I think vice propably wants to block it, but in my oppinion this is a joke if no one can provide a source. Stop perpetuating it

Vice did block Archive for a bit, but if you guys are talking about that pic from Facebook, it was probably fake.

I think someone made it to draw attention to the fact that Vice was blocking archive. A propaganda tool. Archive.is fixed the problem shortly after. So I guess the tactic worked.

But that Facebook post wasn’t up, and no archive of it was ever produced.

Also, quick question, anyone know if there's a term for an argument made for the point of holding someone to their own standard?

I don't know if such a term exists, but we need one.

For instance, I don't think the whole Samantha Bee thing was done because anyone on the right was actually upset, but more to point out hypocrisy.

i don't think standards are a valid premise, but you could perhaps conceive it as steel manning.

Maybe

idk if you are really taking the best form of their argument

Except steel-manning is generally considered something honorable to do in debate

its not exactly honorable, its just better to do, because you are taking down the strongest form of their argument, which is hard to beat

How isn't it honorable to challenge the most charitable take of something?

I can't think of a single situation where granting your opponent's premise before dismantling it on it's own terms isn't top class debate.

oh, its top class, but honor doesn't have anything to do with. Its just the best way to win.

It's not something I'd consider dishonorable.

that doesn't make it honorable. i'm just saying it has nothing to do with honor

i guess you could say it is honorable in the sense it is the opposite of straw man, which is usually dishonorable.

Well, yeah, that's generally the premise I was going with.

You technically CAN win a debate on a strawman, if you disguise it well enough

but really, its just the best tactic to win an argument. because you are attacking their argument in its strongest form, which means that anything less is also debunked.

It's still safe to say honorable and best tactic are not mutually exclusive.

And to say that's the easiest way to win, it really isn't.

i guess, i just don't see it having anything to do with respect.

i didn't say easiest, i said best.

Fair enough

It's the hard path. If it were easy, everyone would do it for every issue.

its hard, but its a knock out punch.

and could be the shortest path to victory

WTF I love AI now.

@Giovanna Liviana lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4swy0VWxbtM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=Vu4uwaa-c_Q https://s22.postimg.cc/98xrd86dd/patrick_little_polls.jpg
https://littlerevolution.us/