These days, we’re heading for an infotainment implosion. Even though we have all the world’s knowledge at our fingertips, many fail to grasp its meaning and importance, much less read past the headline and, at best, the first paragraph. Meanwhile, we’re letting machines do our thinking for us.
Glenn Beck’s new A.I. project is meant to get ahead of the curve, and it’s laudable in all its goals. But there is also a vital function that cannot be neglected: archiving and storing away the facts and data of our society. At present, these critical functions are performed by entities such as the Internet Archive, doing a yeoman’s job at storing away these irreplaceable records. They’ve come under attack recently and have had some breakdowns that point to a need for a separate system that performs the same function, albeit from a conservative point of view. Thus, this is our case for Glenn Beck and everyone else to support a Freedom Archive.
Multiple systems are better than one or two.
Most preppers can recite the rule of three: “Three is two, two is one, and one is none.” In other words, you need to have a couple of back-ups for every primary system that you rely on — water, food, self-defense, etc. The same holds true in storing information.
In engineering terms, you don’t want to have one failure mode that will lead to disaster.
Last fall, the Internet Archive was attacked and taken offline — just before the election — in a DDOS attack and security breach that exposed millions of users’ data. Though it was restored in a couple of days, its absence showed the vital nature of this resource. This could easily happen again around election time, depriving people of critical information when they need it the most.
A separate and independent resource that could avoid damage from one of these attacks would be crucial in that kind of situation.
For all its good work, the Internet Archive does tend to lean leftward, and though it doesn’t seem to be an issue at present, the rule of three suggests that it would be better to have a separate system in place, just in case there is a problem in the future.
An independent and conservative-oriented archive would also take some of the pressure off the Internet Archive as the only large-scale archiving system. It would no longer have to worry about covering all the bases, because another system would have its back.
And with a slightly different political orientation, it’s more likely that at least one of these would cover every significant data set.
Competition is good.
Finally, a Freedom Archive in friendly competition with the Internet Archive would have the overall effect of immensely improving both systems, as it does in other realms of the world of economic freedom. Like any other competitive endeavor, the process strengthens both sides. A lack of competition only serves mediocrity.
Odds are that a brand-new Freedom Archive, built from the ground up, would have immense room to innovate and be more efficient with resources. Soon enough, the nature of friendly competition would compel the Internet Archive to offer similar innovations and go on to create new tech beyond that, while becoming more efficient itself. Such is the nature of the free market system.
A few months ago, Glenn Beck presented a challenge to recent graduates that we must conserve our history or it will be lost, using the illustration of the clay pots that preserved the Dead Sea Scrolls. But this wasn’t just a message for graduates; it’s something for all of us. It’s time to consider a Freedom Archive to back up the decidedly left-leaning Internet Archive.
D Parker is an engineer, inventor, wordsmith, and student of history, former director of communications for a civil rights organization, and a longtime contributor to conservative websites. Find him on Substack.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.