61–70 of 351 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
One side publishes words, the other DDoSes. One side could just ignore the other and go about their business, the other cannot. One is using force, which naturally leads to resistance and additional attention, the other is not. Both sides look like they have been bullied in the past and not found their way out of reproducing the pattern yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why? Because once the problematic content is removed it should no longer be blocked. >It's accurate It is neither a C&C server for a botnet, nor any other server related to a botnet. I would not call it accurate. >Nobody should ever use that site It has a good reputation for archiving sites, has stead the test of time, and doesn't censor pages like archive.org does allowing you to actually see the history of news ar…
The site started doctoring archived versions as part of the petty feud. That is, what was supposed to be a historical record, suddenly had content manipulated so as to feed into this fight[0]. There is no redemption. You want to be an archive, you keep it sacrosanct. Put an obvious hosting-site banner overlay if you must, but manipulating the archive is a red-line that was crossed. ...On 20 February 2026, English Wik…
Did AT go beyond that and manipulate any relevant part? That's rather difficult to say now. AT is obviously tampering with evidence, but so is Wikipedia; their admins have heavily redacted their archived Talk pages out of fear one of these pseudonyms might be an actual person, so even what exactly WP accuses AT of is not exactly clear.
Good. You don't get to use my computer for a DDoS. I don't care why the DDoS was happening. I wasn't asked, and that's a serious breach of trust.
Breach of trust by a site whose unstated primary purpose is bypassing paywalls and ripping off content? 20 years ago during the P2P heyday this was assumed to come with the territory. Play with fire and you could get burned. If you walk into a seedy brothel in the developing world, your first thought should be "I might get drugged and robbed here" and not what you're going to type in the Yelp review later about their…
Nobody was shedding any tears 20 years ago for the virus makers who had their viruses flagged by virus scanners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
One side publishes words, the other DDoSes. One side could just ignore the other and go about their business, the other cannot. One is using force, which naturally leads to resistance and additional attention, the other is not. Both sides look like they have been bullied in the past and not found their way out of reproducing the pattern yet.
When the heat dies down, hopefully this flag gets removed.
They arent being flagged because of the attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, there's one filler post I missed. I'm sure it took a lot of time to write the 16739382nd post explaining what the various things on a boarding pass mean.
They have posted twice in four years. Once doing some digging into who runs archive today, and a second time to respond to a ddos attack. Writing about being ddos'd seems eminently reasonable. So if you elide that, you are talking about a single article in four years. It's genuinely nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? It’s accurate and if the owner has chosen to do this for months now, why should we ever trust they won’t again? Nobody should ever use that site and every optional filter should block them.
Because it's not the place of a DNS resolver to police the internet.
Here is the DDoS context https://gyrovague.com