Sending everything to archive.org is bad default value and it erodes a certain level of trust in the project. Requiring "several important changes and security considerations" just makes a non-starter. The default settings should be "safe" for the default user, because as you mentioned in that post, 90% of users are never going to change them. Users should be able to run it locally and archive data without worrying about security issues, unless you only want experts to be able to use your software.

Also a contradiction between your statement and your blogpost, someone saving their photos isn't going to be want to worry about whether they configured your tool correctly or leaking all the group logs or grandma's photos.

>It's prominently mentioned many times (at least 4) on our homepage that this is the default, and archiving public-only sites (which are already fair game for Archive.org) is a default for good reason. Archiving private content requires several important changes and security considerations. More context

> Who cares about saving stuff?

> All of us have content that we care about, that we want to see preserved, but privately:

> families might want to preserve their photo albums off Facebook, Flickr, Instagram

> individuals might want to save their bookmarks, social feeds, or chats from Signal/Discord

> companies might want to save their internal documents, old sites, competitor analyses, etc.

I want the project to do well but it really needs to be secure by default.

I'm sure it works for some people, but not me.

What kind of reasoning is this? This is only true if you believe good policies always get implemented. You'll notice other countries like Japan don't require every man and child to be drugged to stop eating food, and they have a much stronger sense of shame for being an undue burden on society.

It's always funny seeing people pretend they live in a world where small issues like land or food don't affect them, even though they only have that privilege because a larger military says they should.

Framed in an insane way by someone looking to denigrate someone they don't like. I have no idea who you're targeting but you obviously have a chip on your shoulder.

No it's not. I'll make it simpler. If you know the material really well but haven't memorized the problems, you will test poorly. If you memorize the problems and have no real understanding of the material, you will test well. This is obviously the opposite of what you want to test.