311–320 of 351 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So far, the only sin archive.today has been accused of is retaliating against a guy attempting to dox them. That's a pretty small sin in my book. To be written off as wildly unsuccessful but entirely justified self defense. DDoSing gyrovague.com is silly, not evil. The content on gyrovague.com which targets archive.today is evil, plain and simple.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Jani Patokallio runs gyrovague.net in order to harass people who provide useful public services. I mean...investigating who runs secretive yet popular websites is a useful public service, generally called "journalism". And your comments in this thread could be seen as an attempt to harass Jani. I do not, to be clear, think you're doing anything morally wrong, but I'm also not sure I see how you can draw a bright li…
It's unarguably easy to demonstrate the public benefit generated by archive.today, we use the links here on HN to bypass paywalls every single day.
Please demonstrate any public benefit generated by gyrovagues blog post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is in fact a botnet - they’ve been hijacking user browsers to act as a botnet to DDoS.
Are Hacker News users part of a botnet since they link to sites that when people click they go down due to all of the traffic? Am I part of a botnet if I have HN open as it means HN can execute javascript? I think it's stretching the definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Archive.org has an even worse history of this, FWIW. It allows website owners and third parties to tamper with archived content. Look here, for example: https://web.archive.org/web/20140701040026/http://echo.msk.r... Archive.today is by far the best option available.
What does this example show? It shows „ad blocker detected“ for me.
Unless you're very technical, web.archive.org is completely untrustworthy
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…
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-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deflection rather than addressing the actual accusation Pay attention to this type of behavior, folks. It's revealing
What do you want me to address? I'm just pointing out that there are no great archival services, and the only real alternative to archive.today is worse. >Pay attention to this type of behavior, folks. It's revealing What does it reveal?
Or, wow, you just revealed your second account.