3 ms·

I would recommend the Wayback machine archive instead: https://web.archive.org/web/20260306172113/https://community.torproject.org/relay/community-resources/goo

I would recommend the Wayback machine archive instead: https://web.archive.org/web/20260306172113/https://community.torproject.org/relay/community-resources/good-bad-isps/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260306172113/https://community... Given that archive.is is known to DDOS and alter archives (See all the recent HN posts about them)

observationist 7mo ago
I'm perfectly happy to continue using archive.is for so long as it remains functional.
- Cider9986 7mo ago
  I support the owner of archive.today. He has created one of the most valuable services on the internet to protect freedom of information.
anonym29 7mo ago
archive.org outright removes large numbers of pages, including political content; archive.is has edited a handful of pages to redact the doxxing of the archive.is owners.
- observationist 7mo ago
  The editing they do in self preservation is understandable, and far less wrong than having to kowtow to political pressure and private influence; archive.org is great, but unreliable in ways that archive.is et al are not. They're both very useful, in complementary ways. I even think what archive.is did to their detractor was understandable - in poor taste, definitely black hat, don't do stuff like that, immature as hell, but hey, I get the human impulse that led to the bad decision, and I'm not gonna base whether I use the site or not on that.
- 8cvor6j844qw_d6 7mo ago
  True. archive.org complies with removal requests from site owners [1]. The problem is that the content most worth preserving is exactly the content people try hardest to get taken down. If archive.is goes down, and between the FBI subpoena and the Wikipedia ban the pressure is real, archive.org becomes the de facto monopoly in web archival. A monopoly that honors takedown requests is not a reliable record of history. [1]: https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-something-from-archive-org/ https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-som...
  - Akronymus 7mo ago
    also, archive.org only verifies the current owner of the domain for takedowns. So if a site was hosting content, that content was archived the site then shut down and someone else acquired the domain, the new owner could request the removal of the old content.
JaggedJax 7mo ago
The turfing with this topic is strong and needs to be called out. Reliable sources are crucial now more than ever. We cannot tolerate and promote botnets once they are uncovered.
gzread 7mo ago
The life of the owner of archive.is is directly threatened by the people they are ineffectively attacking back, so I'm not sure I can really blame them.
- Dylan16807 7mo ago
  Wasn't the information in that post pretty easy to get? No, I don't call that a direct threat.
- cncnfnfn 7mo ago
  Who said anything about blame? You can blame whoever you want. The concern is that he’s shown he’s not a trustworthy archivist.

observationist 7mo ago

I'm perfectly happy to continue using archive.is for so long as it remains functional.

Cider9986 7mo ago
I support the owner of archive.today. He has created one of the most valuable services on the internet to protect freedom of information.

anonym29 7mo ago

archive.org outright removes large numbers of pages, including political content; archive.is has edited a handful of pages to redact the doxxing of the archive.is owners.

observationist 7mo ago
The editing they do in self preservation is understandable, and far less wrong than having to kowtow to political pressure and private influence; archive.org is great, but unreliable in ways that archive.is et al are not. They're both very useful, in complementary ways. I even think what archive.is did to their detractor was understandable - in poor taste, definitely black hat, don't do stuff like that, immature as hell, but hey, I get the human impulse that led to the bad decision, and I'm not gonna base whether I use the site or not on that.
8cvor6j844qw_d6 7mo ago
True. archive.org complies with removal requests from site owners [1]. The problem is that the content most worth preserving is exactly the content people try hardest to get taken down. If archive.is goes down, and between the FBI subpoena and the Wikipedia ban the pressure is real, archive.org becomes the de facto monopoly in web archival. A monopoly that honors takedown requests is not a reliable record of history. [1]: https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-something-from-archive-org/ https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-som...
- Akronymus 7mo ago
  also, archive.org only verifies the current owner of the domain for takedowns. So if a site was hosting content, that content was archived the site then shut down and someone else acquired the domain, the new owner could request the removal of the old content.

JaggedJax 7mo ago

The turfing with this topic is strong and needs to be called out. Reliable sources are crucial now more than ever. We cannot tolerate and promote botnets once they are uncovered.

gzread 7mo ago

The life of the owner of archive.is is directly threatened by the people they are ineffectively attacking back, so I'm not sure I can really blame them.

Dylan16807 7mo ago
Wasn't the information in that post pretty easy to get? No, I don't call that a direct threat.
cncnfnfn 7mo ago
Who said anything about blame? You can blame whoever you want. The concern is that he’s shown he’s not a trustworthy archivist.