4 ms·

Did you not read the article? They not only directed a DDOS against a blogger who crossed them, but altered their own archived snapshots to amplify a smear agai

Did you not read the article? They not only directed a DDOS against a blogger who crossed them, but altered their own archived snapshots to amplify a smear against them. That completely destroys their trustworthiness and credibility as a source of truth.

chrisjj 8mo ago
Sure I read it. But I don't believe everything I read on the internet.
- creatonez 8mo ago
  The proof is right there for you to see. Denying it is rather wacky.
ouhamouch 8mo ago
Altered snapshots = hide Nora name? ArsTechica just did the same - removed Nora from older articles. How can you trust ArsTechica after that?
- Jordan-117 8mo ago
  They didn't just remove her name, but replaced it with the target's name. I don't know what you're talking about re: Ars removing her name from old articles.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ouhamouch 8mo ago
    [dead]
  - Jordan-117 8mo ago
    Follow-up: maybe you're confusing Ars Technica with Wikipedia, whose admins did redact Nora's last name from discussions? If so, that's a weird equivalence to draw, since the change was disclosed and done to protect personal information, not attack someone else in the process. (Also, "Nora [redacted]" itself seems to be a name lifted from an unrelated person who had merely contacted Archive.today with a takedown request.)
    - Smartchat 8mo ago
      1. I can't post links (I've already tried), my comments with links are getting shadowbanned. Check out Jon Brodkin's article on Ars about AT, not today's, but the previous one, 6 days ago. Nora's name was there, but now it's silently gone. 2. We learned about Nora's involvement from Patokallio. We learned about Nora's non-involvement... also from Patokallio. They could have reached a settlement with AT that includes hiding Nora's name. 3. Regardless of who Nora is, it is interesting to see the extent of this censorship: so far only gyrovague.com and arstechnica.com, but not tomshardware.com and not tech.yahoo.com. This shows which sites are working closely with the AT defamation campaign, and which are simply copywriting the news feed.
      - Jordan-117 8mo ago
        Silently? It tells you right there in the article: "Nora [last name redacted]". Maybe they could add a more fulsome explanation in an editor's note but it seems pretty obvious in context. If AT is appropriating some random person's name as an alias, it seems helpful to report on that publicly in order to expose the practice and help clear up the misinformation.
        Smartchat 8mo ago
        Silently. Last article. Not today's. One with title 'Archive.today CAPTCHA page executes DDoS; Wikipedia considers banning site' I'll try to add the link with comment edit: This has Nora's name https://web.archive.org/web/20260210195502/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-might-blacklist-archive-today-after-site-maintainer-ddosed-a-blog/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260210195502/https://arstechni... The current version has not
        Jordan-117 8mo ago
        Even if they did, so what? There's nothing wrong with a news article removing personal information as a precaution. It's light-years away from altering the content of an archival snapshot in order to target someone else.

chrisjj 8mo ago

Sure I read it. But I don't believe everything I read on the internet.

creatonez 8mo ago
The proof is right there for you to see. Denying it is rather wacky.

ouhamouch 8mo ago

Altered snapshots = hide Nora name? ArsTechica just did the same - removed Nora from older articles. How can you trust ArsTechica after that?

Jordan-117 8mo ago
They didn't just remove her name, but replaced it with the target's name. I don't know what you're talking about re: Ars removing her name from old articles.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- ouhamouch 8mo ago
  [dead]
- Jordan-117 8mo ago
  Follow-up: maybe you're confusing Ars Technica with Wikipedia, whose admins did redact Nora's last name from discussions? If so, that's a weird equivalence to draw, since the change was disclosed and done to protect personal information, not attack someone else in the process. (Also, "Nora [redacted]" itself seems to be a name lifted from an unrelated person who had merely contacted Archive.today with a takedown request.)
  - Smartchat 8mo ago
    1. I can't post links (I've already tried), my comments with links are getting shadowbanned. Check out Jon Brodkin's article on Ars about AT, not today's, but the previous one, 6 days ago. Nora's name was there, but now it's silently gone. 2. We learned about Nora's involvement from Patokallio. We learned about Nora's non-involvement... also from Patokallio. They could have reached a settlement with AT that includes hiding Nora's name. 3. Regardless of who Nora is, it is interesting to see the extent of this censorship: so far only gyrovague.com and arstechnica.com, but not tomshardware.com and not tech.yahoo.com. This shows which sites are working closely with the AT defamation campaign, and which are simply copywriting the news feed.
    - Jordan-117 8mo ago
      Silently? It tells you right there in the article: "Nora [last name redacted]". Maybe they could add a more fulsome explanation in an editor's note but it seems pretty obvious in context. If AT is appropriating some random person's name as an alias, it seems helpful to report on that publicly in order to expose the practice and help clear up the misinformation.
      - Smartchat 8mo ago
        Silently. Last article. Not today's. One with title 'Archive.today CAPTCHA page executes DDoS; Wikipedia considers banning site' I'll try to add the link with comment edit: This has Nora's name https://web.archive.org/web/20260210195502/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-might-blacklist-archive-today-after-site-maintainer-ddosed-a-blog/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260210195502/https://arstechni... The current version has not
        Jordan-117 8mo ago
        Even if they did, so what? There's nothing wrong with a news article removing personal information as a precaution. It's light-years away from altering the content of an archival snapshot in order to target someone else.