MSNBC's Joy Reid says anti-gay posts on her old blog were 'fabricated', Internet Archive responds

Originally published at:


I really like Joy Reid. I’ll be following this story as more comes out, but IMHO, being anti LGBTQ doesn’t sound like her at all. She’s one of the sharpest knives in the drawer.

OK, went back and read the Intercept article. Sounds like she did apologize for some stuff, but has now changed her tune about some other stuff. WTF? I guess I’ll find out when the truth comes out, as it usually does.


I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again,’s approach to robots.txt is badly broken.

Right now, they respect robots.txt “do not archive” requests retroactively - so if you set do not archive on your site today, it means all the prior versions of your site will be removed from the wayback machine.

They should be doing the opposite - respect the flag only for the version of the site that has the flag set. That way, if a domain gets sold and the new owner sets “do not archive,” it does not blow away access to the archive of the original site, whose owner may have very much wanted their site to be archived. (the plague of cybersquatters means that this is a very common problem)

If someone changes their mind, they can request that the archive for their site be taken down or put back up. But changes in the flag as of today should not affect the status of the site in the archive.


“I’ve been hacked!” is the ‘dog ate my homework’ of the computer age.


Conduct a forensic analysis of the writing styles to her corpus?


I’ve always had a funny feeling about her, but I feel that way about most cable news anchors.

People seem to think that anti-gay people are like the Duck Dynasty folk. In my personal experience, the most anti-gay folk are the straight girls who hang around only so they can make gay “jokes.”

Reid’s “allyship” is solely for her own amusement.

1 Like

Own your past, Ms. Reid.


Here in Minnesota, I believe we have various polite, sensible politicians who don’t care to be thought of as reprehensible, so they keep their anti-gay opinions to themselves.

I call this phenomenon “the hate that dare not speak its name.”


No, because that excuse is often idiomatic for something that doesn’t actually happen.


Doesn’t she have some weird anti-Bernie thing going on, too?

1 Like

This seems like a case where suggesting something was hacked brings far more attention to the story than it otherwise would have received.

The world was a different place in 2005.


What’s weird about that? I’m not a fan.


I wonder if Reid attended an African-American church. Some of those black preachers give right-wing white evangelicals a run for their money when it comes to bigotry against gay folks.


To satisfy me she’ll have to change her first name to Gay, Gay Reid sounds so much better.


Do you know if their choice is an actual belief that doing it this way is the best way to do it; or the recognition that they certainly can’t afford to fight(and, not at all implausibly might not be able to win as matter of law, much less of legal attrition) the copyright infringement claims that a gigantic archive of scraped, almost entirely copryighted, material would likely attract if deemed uncooperative?

1 Like

I’m asking about her honesty, not her taste.


I honestly don’t know anything about Joy Reid, but if she’s as big a deal as this post suggests I’m more interested in what she is saying and, more importantly, doing now than I am in what she might have said a decade ago. Sure, if she’s denying things she actually said and blaming it on “hackers” then it’s pretty ham-fisted and could undermine her credibility, but that’s nothing that a bit of positive action shouldn’t resolve. On the other hand, if she’s saying “I’m not anti-LGBTQ, hackers tried to make me look like I am, but I’m not going to say or do anything to support LGBTQ people except deny that I don’t like them,” well, then, color me skeptical.


Presumably, they took hashes when they saved the sites and saved them in a separate place. So we could check if they are different.


I’m going to be pedantic about this and say that yes dogs, especially puppies, do chew-up and sometimes ingest paper.


What did she actually post, 10 years ago? Was it already removed by retroactive robots.txt directives? Oh I see, it starts here:

I know that Jason Scott confirmed to me that the Internet Archive does retain all content that was pulled in this (insane and incorrect, IMO) manner with robots.txt, they just don’t show it.