221–230 of 351 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jani here. What you describe as "doxxing" consisted of a) a whois lookup for archive.is and b) linking to a StackExchange post from 2020 called "Who owns archive.today" [1]. There is literally no new information about the site's owner in the post, all names have been dug up before and are clearly aliases, and the post states as much. [1] https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/145817/who-owns-...
I don't see how this description changes the fundamental nature of your actions. Even a half-assed attempt at doxing is still an attempt at doxing. It'd be much easier to accept that you're acting in good faith had you deleted the post when it became obvious that the target doesn't appreciate it. You could still do that, and it would very simply be the right thing to do.
Edit: reading some comments here seems that I was too fast, and that the story is much more complicated. Having just the Cloudflare page as a context, I assumed the news were a miscalssification. Could someone share more context on what is going on here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jani here. What you describe as "doxxing" consisted of a) a whois lookup for archive.is and b) linking to a StackExchange post from 2020 called "Who owns archive.today" [1]. There is literally no new information about the site's owner in the post, all names have been dug up before and are clearly aliases, and the post states as much. [1] https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/145817/who-owns-...
Isn’t doxxing most of the time just collecting data from multiple public sources and connect them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your claim was that 1.1.1.1 was blocking sites. Are you saying now you just had issues with the quality of service? Or do you want to provide more details to substantiate the claim that they were blocking sites?
No, I do not keep any logs from domain name resolution from the DNS service I used from 7+ years ago. If you do, I commend you. I used the term "blocking" in a loose sense. I have no idea if Cloudflare was failing to resolve certain domains because it is a shitty service, or if it was ordered to block those domain names by its government, or if it was actively not resolving domain names because it thought a good idea…
I'm going to go with option D) whatever shitty site you were browsing to had a broken DNS or more likely DNSSEC configuration and Cloudflare was correct to not serve a corrupt response.
99% of the time, tales of "they're blocking my site! you guys are nazis!" always turn out to have a root cause of broken DNS configuration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use cloudflare DNS because it’s faster. But should I worry, having read your comment? What is the downside to using it? What would you recommend instead?
Quad9. Many years ago I used Cloudflare, and more than once I had issues with them blocking websites I wanted to access. I absolutely despise that. I want my DNS to resolve domain names, nothing else. For blocking things I have Pi-Hole, which is under my control for that reason. I can blacklist or whitelist addresses to my needs, not to the whims of a corporation that wants to play gatekeeper to what I can browse.
A bit context if you are confused why Public DNS server blocking websites. 1.1.1.2 is Malware blocking DNS server similar to AdBlock DNS server. It is not 1.1.1.1 and 1.0.0.1 Here is the DDoS context https://gyrovague.com
For some reason I thought 1.1.1.1/1.0.0.1 already wouldn’t resolve archive.[today|is|ph] anyway
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
[flagged]
Archive.today's attack on https://gyrovague.com is still on-going btw. It started just over two months ago. Some IPs get through normally but for example finnish residential IPs get stuck on endless captchas. The JS snippet that starts spamming gyrovague appears after solving the first captcha.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I always thought that mainstream media sites with paywalls were pretty far down there in the tier list of websites though. Not sure if this analogy lands unless irony was the goal.
What I do not see is the irony you insinuate in your post. It is not immoral to charge people for content, nor does that make you less credible. (It might even make you more credible since you now earn money by having happy customers instead of serving more ads.)
Some news sources are not trustworthy but that's independent of there being a paywall.