The life of the owner of archive.is is directly threatened by the people they are ineffectively attacking back, so I'm not sure I can really blame them.
replyThe turfing with this topic is strong and needs to be called out. Reliable sources are crucial now more than ever. We cannot tolerate and promote botnets once they are uncovered.
replyI'm perfectly happy to continue using archive.is for so long as it remains functional.
replyI support the owner of archive.today. He has created one of the most valuable services on the internet to protect freedom of information.
replyarchive.org outright removes large numbers of pages, including political content; archive.is has edited a handful of pages to redact the doxxing of the archive.is owners.
replyTrue. archive.org complies with removal requests from site owners [1]. The problem is that the content most worth preserving is exactly the content people try hardest to get taken down. If archive.is goes down, and between the FBI subpoena and the Wikipedia ban the pressure is real, archive.org becomes the de facto monopoly in web archival. A monopoly that honors takedown requests is not a reliable record of history.
reply[1]: https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-som...
The editing they do in self preservation is understandable, and far less wrong than having to kowtow to political pressure and private influence; archive.org is great, but unreliable in ways that archive.is et al are not. They're both very useful, in complementary ways.
replyI even think what archive.is did to their detractor was understandable - in poor taste, definitely black hat, don't do stuff like that, immature as hell, but hey, I get the human impulse that led to the bad decision, and I'm not gonna base whether I use the site or not on that.