upvote

points

by LeoPanthera6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby progval5 hours ago|
next
[-]
> to DDOS sites the owner doesn't agree with

to DDOS one website, which is doxxing the owner. Not that it makes it good idea, but it's a little more understandable.

reply
upvoteby bulder4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
DDoSing a website, modifying their archives surreptitiously to serve their own wants (which was what tipped Wikipedia towards banning their use), running weird sockpuppet campaigns to build dependence on them, and fucking with Cloudflare's DNS resolution to prevent anti-tracking measures from working.

Oh and even if I wanted to ignore all of this, I couldn't use them anyways because they blackholed the majority of Finnish IP ranges after the DDoS incident to I guess punish the entire country for the targeted blogger being born here.

reply
upvoteby dakolli3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
archive.today has been targeted by Western institutions, like the FBI, for over a year now. Which signals to me they are the good guys.
reply
upvoteby wongarsu13 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
All that tells us is that the site is probably not run by the FBI. It could still be run by the CIA, Russian intelligence, or some lone morally neutral guy from Prague
reply
upvoteby SXX3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Come on. It's not WikiLeaks. If they were targeted by FBI it would be down.
reply
upvoteby dakolli3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
What do you mean, I didnt make it up... Its detailed on the archive.today wikipedia page.

The media barrons in the west have bribed the US government to pursue archive criminally on their behalf for helping people bypass paywalls.

https://www.theverge.com/news/815691/fbi-subpoena-archive-is...

reply
upvoteby bulder1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That's great, how does that absolve the archive.today maintainer's bad faith activities, including creating a country-wall?
reply
upvoteby radicalcentrist3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I'm not well-informed about this situation, but DDOSing does strike me as an action which is fundamentally counter to information freedom and archival, so that seems like a reasonable suspicion to me.
reply
upvoteby RobotToaster2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I would add it was also completely ineffective since the site in question was hosted on wordpress.com, which is about as likely to work as ddosing Google.
reply
upvoteby forestingfisher4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
If it works, it works. Also the Internet Archive also excludes many sites for ideological reasons which is the opposite of preservation
reply
upvoteby Hamuko4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Not sure how well it’s “working” considering any of the archived pages might be altered by the site’s administrator to further their causes. There’s a reason why Wikipedia stopped trusting them.
reply
upvoteby forestingfisher4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I agree, it makes sense for large source-reliant projects like Wikipedia to stop using them. However, for the end-user, it's often the service that works best.
reply
upvoteby agile-gift02622 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
What offends me the most is how they used visitor's compute and badnwidth for ther own purpose unrelated to the reason the visitor accessed the site, without consent or disclosure. It's MY computer, MY internet, not yours to do with it what you please
reply
upvoteby Cider99866 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
And archive.org removes perfectly legal content from their accessible archives. Nobody's perfect. The guy running archive.today has done a shit ton of good.
reply
upvoteby jan_m_savage22 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
My beef with IA is that none of the books as listed for borrowing are borrowable anymore. Why list it then!
reply
upvoteby hnfong4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
[flagged]
reply
upvoteby 3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby andai6 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Well then another guy should provide a technically equivalent and morally superior service ;)
reply
upvoteby markasoftware6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I mean, lots of other archive.* sites exist and do the same thing minus problematic behavior, such as archive.is, archive.oh (though maybe some are operated by the same individual...)
reply
upvoteby plorg5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Are any of those not run by the archive.today guy? That site has like a dozen aliases.
reply
upvoteby topato5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Haha all of those are .today aliases. Not sure the hate over him ddosing the guy doxxing him. .today’s paywall circumvention is also why miscellaneous groups have tried to report him to the FBI over planted CSAM material, among other horrible harassment. I think we should all give him a second chance for the huge amount of time, both before and after the stupid and short lived ddos incident, that he has dedicated to archiving.

His identity must be secretive, as he has already drawn the ire of many powers that be, so… I personally think the ddos incident was justified… and I’m glad my bandwidth helped in any way, frankly. Some people seem to really want to portray him as some shady evil bad guy, and after all the hit jobs against him in the past year or two, I really wonder who these anti-archive.today people actually are and what they’re motivations are (besides money).

reply
upvoteby p91paul2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think the fact they are known to have changed the content of archived pages is way worse than the DDoS incident, since it makes them untrustworthy even as a source of information. Wikipedia decided to ban all archive.today (and aliases) links because of that
reply
upvoteby vachina1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Do you have an example of such cases happening?
reply
upvoteby Cider99865 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Wikipedia links these as the mirrors.

archive.today

archive.fo

archive.is

archive.li

archive.md

archive.ph

archive.vn

archiveiya74codqgiixo33q62qlrqtkgmcitqx5u2oeqnmn5bpcbiyd.onion

reply