CDC Clone Site Hosted by Group Previously Led by HHS Secretary

jmclnx

Is this about a fake site pushing false data ? Seems so, hopefully it is blocked by cloudflare, proving they can do something useful :)

chneu

Seems like something cloudflare should be removing.

ceejayoz

Aren’t they notorious for not taking anything down?

NewJazz

All fun and games until "misleading vaccine claims" means pro-vaccine claims, according to the govt. What if I want to host a clone of the CDC site as it existed before Trump took office? Could they take me down on similar grounds? Do I have to go through the laborious task of removing CDC logos et cetera?

WhatsName

I think there is a big gap between providing a historic clone of what a government agency has said in the past (even after/due to gov. policy) and misrepesenting by publishing something never said under their logo.

berbec

The Internet Archive currently does "host a clone of the CDC site as it existed before Trump took office". Everyone on IA knows, or could find out very easily, that they are viewing of an older version of the site.

The NGO group publishing this website seems to be intentionally misrepresenting the site as the actual CDC. They have altered the information contained on the page to push a specific message that is not backed up by science as understood by the CDC, whose website they are impersonating. The page is designed in such a way to ensure you do NOT know you are not viewing the current CDC.

As this is HN, I'm going to interpret your message in the best possible light. I need to ask a clarifying question:

Does this really seem like a slippery slope to you? Taking down a website designed to impersonate another entity and misrepresent their beliefs will lead to the tyranny taking down the Internet Archive?

NewJazz

If the current admin wants the internet archive gone, or a portion of it gone, they'll find some way to do it. So in a way, yes I think it is a little bit of a slippery slope. Specifically the part about cloudfare adjudicating whether a website is making misleading claims / spreading misinformation or not.

I agree there is a bit of nuance here and the situations are not exactly alike. But the current administration doesn't deal well with nuance.

null

[deleted]