upvote

points

by ValentineC15 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby eek212111 hours ago|
next
[-]
Correct:Also, archive.* has actively edited archived sites to promote their agenda. Why folks continue to use them confuses me. One would think the big wikipedia purge would curb such behavior.
reply
upvoteby normie300010 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> Why folks continue to use them confuses me.

I use them. I haven't ever heard mention that the content is edited. Do you have a source?

reply
upvoteby uqers9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
See

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-might-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...?

Besides tampering with content, the site was also using visitors to DDOS a blog that mentioned the owner of archive.today.

reply
upvoteby sam_lowry_6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
[dead]
reply
upvoteby Mogzol9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
See the "Background" section of the Wikipedia RFC on banning archive.today links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment...

They bulk replaced one string (a name) with another one across many archived pages, and added malicious code to all archive pages that would rapidly send requests to gyrovague.com in an attempt to DDOS them.

reply
upvoteby sam3459 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Just out of curiosity, how do we know that what is in the Wikipedia comments is accurate? I have no skin in the game. I was just wondering. Anybody can post anything on Wikipedia comments. I find it odd that Ars Technica would use that as a source. Maybe it's fine for gossip and speculation but it shouldn't be in Ars Technica then.
reply
upvoteby Mogzol4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
There is a megalodon.jp archive of an archive.today page that shows the edits: https://megalodon.jp/2026-0219-1654-07/https://archive.ph:44...

There's also a bunch of previous hackernews discussions about it:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47474255

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624740

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46843805

And you obviously have no reason to believe me, but I was following this when it was happening at the start of this year and can confirm that the DDoS script and archive text replacements really did happen.

reply
upvoteby fc417fc8028 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Because a lot of us watched the drama unfold in real time.
reply
upvoteby avadodin49 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
reply
upvoteby fn-mote8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> Why folks continue to use them confuses me.

Seems like the “confused” is disingenuous when not paying for content you read is a clear motivation.

reply
upvoteby opello6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Convenience as a higher order motivator than disgust at the bad behavior of archive.{today,ph,...} mentioned elsewhere, I think is the point of the comment to which you replied.
reply
upvoteby DaSHacka11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Ironically, your framing of the situation is infinitely more disingenuous to push a personal agenda versus anything the archive.today guy did.
reply
upvoteby petcat14 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
ehh it's a distinction without a difference. The point is that alternative links are available to circumvent paid access for anyone that wants them.
reply
upvoteby sandcat_13 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That isn’t the point being discussed. The point being discussed is that it’s bad form to abuse a service (archive.org) that is provided for free, for the public good in order to run commercial scraping operations.
reply
upvoteby petcat13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's bad form to scrape the scrapers?
reply
upvoteby sandcat_13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yes, arguably, and for reasons I already gave. I’d genuinely spend a bit more time reading and thinking rather than replying. Your replies are pithy but you’re missing details and frankly making cognitive mistakes. (Apologies if this seems harsh, I don’t mean it as an insult, but this thread has blown up entirely unnecessarily- and yes, I know I’m not helping either!)
reply
upvoteby petcat13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You seem to think that scraping websites "for the public good" is somehow different than scraping websites for any other reason.

The end result is exactly the same.

reply
upvoteby fc417fc8028 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It is different, precisely because the end result is not the same - one broadly benefits the public while the other doesn't.

Substitute almost any disruptive public service to see the issue with your line of reasoning. For example - you seem to think that [ bulldozing private property ] to "construct an emergency fire break" is somehow different than [ bulldozing private property ] for any other reason.

Never mind that the sort of scraping being objected to is actually harmful to service health while what the wayback machine does is almost entirely unnoticeable.

reply
upvoteby DaSHacka11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The minuscule traffic generated by the wayback machine, which serves to preserve the content for years to come, is completely incomparable to the scrapers that hammer every single href linked on a website.
reply
upvoteby sippingabonedry10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You missed the XCancel flamewar yesterday. The consensus is we should be allowed to scrape data and bypass login walls if we dislike the site owner, or feel we are owed free access by arbitrary criteria, it's sort of an unwritten rule. Unless of course it's Google or Meta properties we're talking about because that might impact RSUs.
reply
upvoteby organsnyder13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
They're different sites, with different goals, run by different people.
reply
upvoteby petcat13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That provide the same functional service....

Hence, distinction without a difference.

reply
upvoteby celsoazevedo13 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
They are 2 different services, run by different people, one goes out of their way to bypass paywalls while the other doesn't, one is banned by Wikipedia and the other isn't, etc.

I think it's a distinction worth making.

Not to mention that the Wayback Machine itself isn't exactly a good tool to bypass paywalls as most paid sites don't let them archive paywalled content anyway.

reply
upvoteby fluffybucktsnek13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Given that the root of the discussion is about Internet Archive being hit with huge traffic and not the functionalities provided by Wayback Machine, it very much is a distinction with a difference.
reply
upvoteby petcat13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Bot traffic or human traffic doesn't matter. The goal is to read websites without having your own access.

So Internet Archive, Archive.today, Archive.ph, etc. are all just means to the same end.

reply
upvoteby publlus_enigma9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I suspect you may be conflating two different things.

Archive.org exists to preserve historical snapshots of the public parts of websites, and not to bypass subscriptions or pay walls.

reply
upvoteby fluffybucktsnek10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Internet Archive's traffic may not matter to you, but that's the main topic of this discussion, regardless of what you care or use website archival tools for.
reply
upvoteby HDBaseT10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I think you have the wrong impression of the Internet Archive.

The internet archive is not designed to circumvent anything. It is not designed to "grant access without having your own access".

reply
upvoteby rpdillon13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yeah, you're mistaken. One archives web pages, the other maintains a list of paid-access accounts and fetches information from behind paywalls as a service.
reply
upvoteby DaSHacka10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Exactly this

archive.org is the more straight-laced archive that doesn't circumvent sites that try to block it, and removes content they deem 'problematic' even if not illegal or requested by the site owner.

Meanwhile archive.today/ph/is/etc is the guerrilla alternative run by a die-hard datahoarder that seeks to archive the information itself, bypassing whatever blockers/login pages/whathaveyou to achieve the result.

It's nice to have both options. When I archive a site, I usually use both for added resiliency.

reply