> [archive.today] replied within a few hours. The response was straightforward: the illegal content would be removed (and we verified that it was), and they had never received any previous notifications about those URLs.
> Moreover, they hinted that Archive.today had been targeted by a campaign of “serial” complaints, supposedly from French organizations, sent to various companies and institutions that could potentially harm the site. They even shared a link demonstrating a complaint similar to the one we had received.
Shows why intermediary-liability laws are so insidious - most intermediaries would simply minimize legal risk and censor anyone that someone complains over. Entirely predictable when not censoring risks jail, while censoring too much carries zero risk.
In fact it has been predicted and loudly warned about before the passage of every such law, so the only possible conclusion is that censorship of law-abiding websites was the intention.
> [archive.today] replied within a few hours. The response was straightforward: the illegal content would be removed (and we verified that it was), and they had never received any previous notifications about those URLs.
> Moreover, they hinted that Archive.today had been targeted by a campaign of “serial” complaints, supposedly from French organizations, sent to various companies and institutions that could potentially harm the site. They even shared a link demonstrating a complaint similar to the one we had received.
Shows why intermediary-liability laws are so insidious - most intermediaries would simply minimize legal risk and censor anyone that someone complains over. Entirely predictable when not censoring risks jail, while censoring too much carries zero risk.
In fact it has been predicted and loudly warned about before the passage of every such law, so the only possible conclusion is that censorship of law-abiding websites was the intention.