There&#x27;s so much opportunity for Orwellian abuse in this new archival model.<p>Sure there&#x27;s archive.org - but in the old model, you&#x27;d say something in print, copy it a million or so times, then distribute it on paper around the world.<p>If an evildoer wanted to change a claim from say, 20 years ago, they&#x27;d have to create a forgery that looks like it&#x27;s 20 years old, then secretly swap out all the archival copies in libraries and get large-scale mass obedience from librarians or manually make the swap at each library individually.<p>These days, you need to add an exclusion to the archive.org bot in robots.txt and then flip a few bits.  It&#x27;s a different ballgame.<p>In the traditional model, someone could find say, an original copy of the 20 year old newspaper and present that as evidence.  Forging that document would be sufficiently hard for a single individual.  But in the new model, claiming something is an &quot;original copy&quot; of a web page can be easily disputed because such a forgery can be trivially crafted.<p>Think about the implications in places with large civil unrest, very little free press, and mostly state-owned media.  What&#x27;s the solution for <i>those</i> societies?<p>It&#x27;s a problem.