191–200 of 351 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea why anyone would drink water from a faucet, much less trust their more filtered versions.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You sufficiently devolved the conversation by feeling it worth voicing “I don’t know why different people willingly use different things”. What are we supposed to do with that? Next you’re going to chastise us for not using ThinkPads.
Apparently, respond to me with inane thoughts, to which I patiently reply.
> You sufficiently devolved the conversation by feeling it worth voicing “I don’t know why different people willingly use different things”.
Also, let's appreciate the irony of your message here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47464134#47477847
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All your comments are painting archive.today as an innocent victim in all this, but in addition to the DDoS, they have been caught modifying archived pages as well as sending actual threats to Patokallio [1] which in my opinion seem far worse than the "doxxing". Just the fact alone that they modified archived pages has completely ruined their credibility, and over what? A blog post about them that (a) wasn't even an…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The purpose of a thing is what it does. What is the purpose of the DDoS JS in the archive website then? Not DDoS?
I'm sure it's DDoS, just like the purpose of gyrovague.com is to attack archive.today Easy stuff, no?
Neither of those is an attack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure it's DDoS, just like the purpose of gyrovague.com is to attack archive.today Easy stuff, no?
Attack? Did we read the same one article? One article is clearly defensive. The other is a piece of investigative journalism about who and how the site is run. Neither of those is an attack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just curious, given all the other options that respect your privacy and don't put data collection at the center of their business model, why do you use Cloudflare on your pi-hole?
[flagged]
I think there are two angles to look at this. Yes, there’s the attack on the weblog. But there’s also pressure on archive.today, e.g. an FBI investigation [1] and some entity using fictitious CSAM allegations [2]. [1]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/11/fbi-subpoena-tri... [2]: https://adguard-dns.io/en/blog/archive-today-adguard-dns-blo...
Jani Patokallio who runs gyrovague.com published a blog post attempting to dox the owner of archive.today. Jani justifies his doxing as follows "I found it curious that we know so little about this widely-used service, so I dug into it" [1] Archive.today on the other hand is a charitable archival project offered to the public for free. The operator of Archive.today risks significant legal liability, but still offers…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Attack? Did we read the same one article? One article is clearly defensive. The other is a piece of investigative journalism about who and how the site is run. Neither of those is an attack.
Of course attempting to dox someone is an attack.
That's not how the judicative system works.