Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Keep Our Servers Running

blog.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 286 posts

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#51

Post by hnfong »

Cider9986 wrote: post #25
LeoPanthera wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um. You mean the same site that uses its captcha page to DDOS sites the owner doesn't agree with, and was banned from use on Wikipedia because the owner was modifying the archived pages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today#2026_attack_on_G... I don't think we should be supporting this random guy, no.

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.

[flagged]

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#52

Post by forestingfisher »

Hamuko wrote: post #49
forestingfisher wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it works, it works. Also the Internet Archive also excludes many sites for ideological reasons which is the opposite of preservation

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.

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.

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#53

Post by theletterf »

Be careful: paying with Google Pay is extremely easy and the default setting is monthly recurrence. If you're not logged in, the only way to cancel (as far as I know) is by sending an email, which is incredibly precarious.

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#55

Post by botanical »

Cider9986 wrote: post #8

THere's also archive.today who does great user-directed archiving. We don't appreciate this infrastructure some random guy runs enough. It's annoying how often archive.org blocks sites but they both complement each other very well. https://liberapay.com/archiveis/donate https://coindrop.to/archive When finding archive.today's Monero donation address just now, I had to use archive.org because donatemonero.org [1] is d…

I also think archive.today is superior to web.archive.org as it breaks less when archiving sources. It's a shame Wikipedia blacklisted it now as an archive source.

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#56

Post by do_it_for_free »

They have some positions posted on their job board. I would do this for free. They should adopt a volunteer workforce like the Redcross Code4Good Volunteer Enterprise Web Services team.

Senior Datacenter Network Infrastructure Engineer Full Time San Francisco, CA, US 30+ days ago Requisition ID: XXXX Salary Range: $140,000.00 To $200,000.00 Annually

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#57

Post by ssl-3 »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #46
j16sdiz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The question OP ask was.... who is paying for the matching? The donation got 3x, sure somebody is paying, right? I was planning to donate, and this omission stopped me.

Why are you guys getting worked up over this? What's wrong with donors wanting to be anonymous?

It's OK for a donor that provides matching funds to wish for, and to be granted, anonymity.

It's also OK for primary donors to be suspicious of this for any reason that they choose, including no reason at all.

Maybe the matching-funds donor is all peachy and clean. Maybe they're the root of all evil.

We don't know.

This lack of knowledge doesn't let people make an informed decision, and people are allowed to seek to make informed decisions and to get turned off when that isn't possible. :)

(For the record: I'm more motivated to toss a few dollars in the hat when there's a multiplier at play than when there is not. I don't really care who it is that supplies the extra money.

My mentality might lead me to a situation wherein my donation to the local orphanage is anonymously multiplied by a nearby orphan crushing facility that turns lost kids into soylent green, but it's a risk that I'm willing to take.

Others are free to be as averse or accepting as they wish.)

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#58

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

ssl-3 wrote: post #57
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you guys getting worked up over this? What's wrong with donors wanting to be anonymous?

It's OK for a donor that provides matching funds to wish for, and to be granted, anonymity. It's also OK for primary donors to be suspicious of this for any reason that they choose, including no reason at all. Maybe the matching-funds donor is all peachy and clean. Maybe they're the root of all evil. We don't know. This lack of knowledge doesn't let people make an informed decision, and people are allowed to seek to…

The reason to avoid working with sketchy donors is so they don't unduly influence you. If they're anonymous, how can they influence you?

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#59

Post by mr_mitm »

foo42 wrote: post #35

Internet Archive feels like an important... well, archive, yet I often worry about the load, financial and potentially political, which is put on it when people use it as a workaround for pay-walls, as is often advocated on HN

That's a different archive

Re: Keep Our Servers Running

#60

Post by [deleted] »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #13
Cider9986 wrote: post #8

THere's also archive.today who does great user-directed archiving. We don't appreciate this infrastructure some random guy runs enough. It's annoying how often archive.org blocks sites but they both complement each other very well. https://liberapay.com/archiveis/donate https://coindrop.to/archive When finding archive.today's Monero donation address just now, I had to use archive.org because donatemonero.org [1] is d…

Um. You mean the same site that uses its captcha page to DDOS sites the owner doesn't agree with, and was banned from use on Wikipedia because the owner was modifying the archived pages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today#2026_attack_on_G... I don't think we should be supporting this random guy, no.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN