Topic: Add ruffle

Ruffle is a web thingy that let's you play flash animations/games on sites.

I think adding this would DEFINITELY help, because honestly those old flash files are just wasting space.

Since this an archive, we should make it our duty to provide an easy and low risk way of accessing stuff on the website

bouncy320 said:
Ruffle is a web thingy that let's you play flash animations/games on sites.

I think adding this would DEFINITELY help, because honestly those old flash files are just wasting space.

Since this an archive, we should make it our duty to provide an easy and low risk way of accessing stuff on the website

No, see topic #22535 & topic #55568 for the numerous times this was brought up.
Allowing Flash back in again IS a security risk and that risk outweighs any benefits to archiving any more SWFs.

While I'll assume you were simply referring to supporting our current roster & not reopening Flash submissions, I still concur with Wolfgang's assessment & add my points from here:

aacafah said:
Even barring all the other reasonable arguments against it, the amount of content excluded is small, & the amount of work to revive support is too large for it to be worth it (no, it's not just flipping a switch; it'd be a fairly substantial undertaking).

We don't support interactive media; that's not our forte. The tagging system, review/approval process, etc. were never built to properly accommodate it. The only reason we ever did was because Flash, the default way to render (& consequently a popular way to distribute) video, incidentally supported interactivity. If it's not interactive, then it can be properly converted to a format we do support. If we were to add any interactive media support, we'd (rightly) get requests for HTML5 games, & that's a whole other can of worms. Do you really want to force our janitors to fully explore an interactive video (or worse, play through a game) to check that something passes our uploading guidelines? Do you want to force our janitors to download & extract what could very well be malicious code to check that a malicious individual didn't secretly include illegal child sex abuse material? We've strengthened our guidelines since the days we supported Flash (& we were honestly fairly lax on it at the time); we cannot handle that strain. We simply are not built to facilitate this.

Flash is gone. It's not coming back. And we aren't shackling ourselves to external plugins to support this unfathomable drain on our dev & moderation time.

While simply adding it for our current Flash posts is a more amenable request, we are not going to humor the deluge of requests to re-enable Flash uploads it will inevitably bring, & it is still a drain on dev resources at a time where we're currently focusing on bug fixes & scaling back on adding features until our lead dev has the time to properly review them. Even then, it's still a notable drain we find not commensurate with the benefit.

If you wish to further discuss the matter, I'll direct you to the aforementioned threads.