>If DDoSing a blog wasn’t bad enough, archive site also tampered with web snapshots. Based.
Also, while we are on that topic of tampering with web snapshots, pro "science"" and pro-LGBTQHIV+ did the same thing during the chinese meme virushttp://archive.today/2023.04.25-003832/https://reclaimthenet.org/internet-archive-wayback-machine-warnings
What happened to archive.org?
>>108198975>tampered with web snapshotsNo kidding. A right-wing website edited the snapshots? Who would have guessed!
archive.today and archive.org both block Mullvad VPNs so fuck them
>>108198975That's a conspiracy theory
>>108198975So what's with the archive guy getting butthurt so easily?Some years back he geoblocked an entire country because he ran into some, admittedly justifiable, racism at a border checkpoint
>>108198975>tampered with web snapshotsHow? The whole point of the archives were to preserve a snapshot of a webpage before it is edited, deleted or otherwise manipulated.
>>108199537the Russian cries out in pain as he strikes you
>>108198975the guy isn't responding very intelligently, but i hate how everyone ignores that he's DDOS'ing a site that is doxing him. that guy is somehow not getting any flack. i think wikipedia needs an actual solution other than removing 700k links. that hurts wikipedia. partner with the internet archive? create their own? the modern web forces people to rely on gray sources like archive.today.
>>108199688Wikipedia only cares because he's "right wing". They allowed the troons to do this freely forever and even go into edit wars and doxx people on site
>"anons" are actually signaling against an archive site
>>108199753>Wikipedia only cares because he's "right wing".is he? how?
>>108198975>>108199020>>108199593The "Tampering" was specifically redacting/changing a person's name on bunch of archived pages. The name may have been someone linked to the archive or a pseudonym used by the archive operator. I'm not sure.I don't know why it happened. It might have been to protect someone's privacy. It's not impossible that it may have been by accident. I don't know and the admin of the archive hasn't commented on it yet. It's very important to note that the changes seem to have been reverted. I don't think this is enough to make archive.today untrustworthy. The DDoS is a bigger issue.>>108198995That's not the same thing. Giving a notification when you view a page is not tampering with an archive. That is explicitly a message from the archive owners and not something that was on the original page.
I've used archive.is in the past because it's convenient. That said, fuck them muscovite whores. Drone those cunts into the fucking ground.
>>108198995Boy, you sure are full of mobik spunk and glavset buzzwords.
>>108199688>the guy isn't responding very intelligently, but i hate how everyone ignores that he's DDOS'ing a site that is doxing him. that guy is somehow not getting any flack. I think some people on wikipedia pointed out that this was provoked by the gyrovague guy who wrote the article. People on ars technica also pointed it out but they got downvoted.I also think the ddos is an unreasonable response, but it's clearly provoked by the blogger who is also acting very bizarre. The whole thing is weird. I'm not sure if they're upset about doxxing, or being accused of carding, or something else. They only asked the gyrovague blogger to take down the blog temporarily, so I don't know why they would want that and I have no idea why he would refuse as well.I also have no idea why archive admin would jump to ddos and threatening making to make a gay dating app using the bloggers family name (among other things). Archive.today's admin's initial strategy of sending a DMCA made more sense. I also would have just reported the site for doxing, since it uses the wordpress hosting which is based in California where doxing is explicitly illegal.>i think wikipedia needs an actual solution other than removing 700k links. that hurts wikipedia. partner with the internet archive? create their own? the modern web forces people to rely on gray sources like archive.today.They aren't removing all of them. A lot of them have copies in other archives, and i think it's possible to resave archive.today links in other archiving sites.
>>108199986well, how many months back was is when the US govt was trying to get the guys info from his dns registrar? they couldn't and then this happens. it seems like something a glowie would do.>the articles exist elsewherethat seems like a lot of work to locate other archives for 700k articles. if they're going to do that they should really create a solution that will last or this could all happen again.
>>108199986>>i think wikipedia needs an actual solution other than removing 700k links. that hurts wikipedia. partner with the internet archive? create their own? the modern web forces people to rely on gray sources like archive.today.>They aren't removing all of them. A lot of them have copies in other archives, and i think it's possible to resave archive.today links in other archiving sites.>>108200018>that seems like a lot of work to locate other archives for 700k articles. if they're going to do that they should really create a solution that will last or this could all happen again.yeah that is true. it is still a massive endeavor to change all those links, even if they were apparently saved. So when you replace You have to make sure you get an archive that has the same content and isn't before or after an edit and isn't a 404 page. You have to make sure the archive page actually works and doesnt go in an infinite redirect loop or have some weird saving error.The thing about archive.today is that it is a static archive that doesn't allow javascript to run, unlike some archiving sites. All of the sites have upsides and downsides, but archive.today worked differently than archive.org in how it saved pages which is sometimes a very usefull thing to have. Most notably, javascript can run in archive.org snapshots but it doesnt work in archive.today. Even the interface of the site used less javascript.There's other things as well. Archive.today allowed you to re-archive stuff from other archiving tools easier than the wayback machine did. It was case sensitive in saved urls which is a good thing sometimes. it allowed for short url links (though this is not desired on wikipedia).
>>108200018>well, how many months back was is when the US govt was trying to get the guys info from his dns registrar? they couldn't and then this happens. it seems like something a glowie would do.Here's the owner's comment on the FBI situation. They said it wasn't that important.https://lj.rossia.org/users/archive_today/409.html
>>108198975>>108198995wtf man. this is why wikipedia ask for money so they can ddos and shutdown archive? what the hell is going?
>>108198975grim
>>108200108wikipedia wasn't ddosing anyone.
>>108199753 >They allowed the troons to do this freely forever and even go into edit wars and doxx people on siteWho is being doxed on wikipedia? Edit wars are irrelevant to the ddos issue. This seems like something you just made up.
>>108199986>People on ars technica also pointed it out but they got downvoted.For instance, the username xoa is being downvoted for no clear reason: https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/wikipedia-bans-archive-today-after-site-executed-ddos-and-altered-web-captures.1511754/#post-44263738
>>108199890also the screenshots of the page weren't changed.
>>108200057>The thing about archive.today is that it is a static archive that doesn't allow javascript to run, unlike some archiving sites. All of the sites have upsides and downsides, but archive.today worked differently than archive.org in how it saved pages which is sometimes a very usefull thing to have. Most notably, javascript can run in archive.org snapshots but it doesnt work in archive.today.basically, some archives on archive.org don't work properly if javascript is enabled.
>>108200224>2 whole downvotesYou made it sound like there's trillions of bots targeting someone but it's a nothingburger.
Why even bother archiving when we have llms?
>>108199010They decided to become a warez site during the covid years.
>>108202042>You made it sound like there's trillions of bots targeting someone but it's a nothingburger.Did you read what I wrote? I specifically said the post from the user named "xoa" is being downvoted. You seem to be looking at the post from the user named "adespoton".The post from xoa is the one that's collapsed. There is a bar that says>Post content hidden for low score. Show…Click show in order to view their post.
>>108202042You know what, I'll just post the screenshot, since you had trouble finding the post.
>>108198975Wikimedia Foundation makes $100M a year, has a $10M profit, spends only $3M on hosting. Rest was embezzled by (((employees)))
>>108202135that doesnt prove anything was embezzled.
>>108202146>101 million on employee salaries
>>108202146Everyone can edit Wikipedia and they don't (ostensibly) pay the editors. What are they paying (((employees))) for? A single guy could manage their stack.
>>108202176so about 130k per employee
>>108199811The left often doesn't allow archiving of its own malfeasance. Archive.today is one of the few places that doesn't have arbitrary restrictions for the sake of preserving an agenda.That's why a lot of sites block it.
>>108202192yes im sure this is a left thingoh waithttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_government_online_resource_removals
>>108202192>Archive.today is one of the few places that doesn't have arbitrary restrictions for the sake of preserving an agenda.What sites have that arbitrary agenda?>That's why a lot of sites block it.What sites actually block archive today?
>>108202176>>108202180Paying employees isn't embezzlement. and you probably aren't going to be able to prove embezzlement from a single page.
>>108200018I would bet that the glowies could do better than a free WordPress blog to get their narrative out. If I can think of a better way that would take just $200 worth of bitcoin and free tier Cloudflare surely they can think of it too. The thing is that this guy has shown that he is prone to butthurt and meltdowns regardless of who is needling him. Who's in the right and who's in the wrong won't determine how a situation turns out when one of the parties is emotionally unstable and the other can easily exploit it.
What should I use? What is archive.is?
>>108199920This.As a fellow /g/ anon i was concerned about this coordinated effort to rewrite or delete the past in a politically biased way, but he uses the buzzword "censorship" to describe something that is objectively and factual censorship, so i rejected it outright!The experts on the TV told me that if someone points out something bad they do, we have to not only ignore them, but actively tell others to do so as well.
>>108202264a wordpress blog run by a google employee, who does not disclose that fact.We all know that google employees would never act in their employers interest. That is completely unheard of.I reject the theory, that the doxxing google guy did bad things, based on it being a blog!Why would he use a blog for doxxing, rather than an official company notice on google.com?
>>108202205damn, trump deleted DEI resources from the White House website?That is totally completely the same as literally mass censoring and deleting news articles from the past and hunting down people who archive them.I fully support censorship now, because both sides are just as bad and therefor we should not care?
>>108202225This!Just because someone is employed by A, doesn't mean that he acts in favor of A during his work hours that A pays him for!
>>108199648This!Archiving things is a pro-Russian ploy!If you remember what happened more than two weeks ago and are against censorship, you must be either a CCP agent or an evil Russian!Russia is against censorship, that is why i am in favour of it!
>>108202567fact checking isnt censorship.
>>108202640>Just because someone is employed by A, doesn't mean that he acts in favor of A during his work hours that A pays him for!Your attempt at sarcasm is a failure, and you didn't even illustrate the issue with Wikipedia paying it's employees. A non-profit organization using its money to pay employees is normal. Saying that someone us "acting in favor of your employer" is so vague as to be essentially meaningless since it covers pretty much any work related activity.Do you even know what the word embezzlement means? It seems like you are just having a knee jerk reaction,because you dislike how wikipedia spends money. You are trying to use a specific financial crime as a general term for financial choices you dislike. Overpaying employees is not embezzlement; it may be a financially poor decision, but it is a legal one. Embezzlement is a felony.
>>108199916seethe
>>108202219Instagram started blocking it after I called out Lavinia Rothschild for bragging about how most people were about to get wiped.In truth, that was some of the tamer shit I found on Instagram.
>>108202883>Instagram started blocking it after I called out Lavinia Rothschild for bragging about how most people were about to get wiped.>In truth, that was some of the tamer shit I found on Instagram.that's totally unrelated to whatever is going on. and im pretty sure the archiving still works sometimes. Instagram will seemingly randomly block anyone who isn't logged in from viewing pages. it doesn't happen all the time, but it happens often after you view enough pages or the same page enough.
>>108202947Her page returns 404 for me 100% of the time when I'm logged in but works 100% the time when logged out. For years now.They fucking hard-coded logic into the site's routing controller to block my account (to send a message, I guess. There's no practical reason to do that).Anyway, that's how I know it's related, because it happened within a couple of days of me archiving a bunch of shit that could become problematic if the archive guy doesn't get rid of it.
>>108202135>pay for internet link>have no website>no staff>no serversWait a second it's almost like you have to pay for things other than your internet connection.
>>108203532Tf am I seeing here
>>108198975and wikipedia takes another step in the fuck the truth business
At least archive.org actually crawls and has saved my ass more than once, plus all the non-web content. I've never had archive.is/today save me.
>>108203532That just sounds like she blocked you on instagram.
>>108204921Huh, it looks like you're right.Didn't expect the site to behave like that.
>>1082035661, the pages are written by volunteers2, the website already exists3, they have the funds to host (incl. servers) for 100 yearsthey could spend a cool million on every critical employee and still last forever
>>108199688>the guy isn't responding very intelligently, but i hate how everyone ignores that he's DDOS'ing a site that is doxing him. that guy is somehow not getting any flack. i think wikipedia needs an actual solution other than removing 700k links. that hurts wikipedia. I wonder if it would be possible for them ask the admin of archive.today to downloads those pages so they could rehost them on a different site?that would get around the ddos issue.>partner with the internet archive? create their own? the modern web forces people to rely on gray sources like archive.today.One user on news.ycombinator.com suggested that wikpedia partner with perma.cc and pay them for their archiving service.
>>108199488
>>108198975>masons doing masonic bullshitoh no!....... whatever
