[Thorentis]

Wait so, the Internet Archive was not involved at all in finding the original, but since the image exists in the archive, IA have written a blog post claiming to be crucial to its discovery? Seems like taking credit for something they didn't do to be honest. They didn't even mention the Tweet in the blog post which was essential to finding the image, which makes me think they want that part overlooked.

[b112]

They most certainly did not take credit, where did you see that?! I think this accusation is unfair.

In fact they say For some, this is a proof that “with enough eyeballs, all problems are shallow”. That doesn't sound like "we solved it!".

Instead, they're using this to highlight how vital archives are. It's a valid point, and there's nothing I see wrong with it.

[msephton]

I think it's part of the recent trend to not mention Twitter/X because of its owner.

[celdon25]

Any evidence for this or just mentioning it because you can?

[salad-tycoon]

dang changed a twitter link to non a twitter one in the past month or so because paraphrasing the twitter one may not work, let’s not prefer twitter, blah blah [nb original link worked fine].

Sorry I didn’t archive this but should be in the history.

That said I know many here have an involuntary eye spasm episode with Elon being mentioned but not sure IA does so not sure I agree with the original accusation.

[chuckadams]

I try to not mention Xitter because I just want it to go away. It was terrible as a conversation format before, and it's completely unusable now. Oh yeah, the owner is a raging douchecanoe too. But mostly it's just broken.

[celdon25]

That wasn’t the context of the question. We are well aware that there are randos out there who don’t like Elon. I was asking why the GP felt the need to share the assumption of the author’s reasons for not mentioning the source, despite having no evidence. You’ve managed to lower the bar even further in the conversation, however.