4 ms·

This is why archive.is was created. Should we stop trying to hunt down and punish its creator and support it as the extremely useful project that it is?

by gzread 7mo ago

philistine 7mo ago
The creator can maintain anonymity. The creator does not deserve to continue being celebrated when they embarked on a DDOS campaign using the traffic of archive.is against a journalist trying to uncover their identity. By these actions, they have shown to be capricious, vindictive, and willing to ensnare their users in their DDOS of others. Whoever they are, they’re terrible.
- MSFT_Edging 7mo ago
  If there's ever something a journalist would never ever do, it's destroy someone's life for a headline. Never ever. Totally impossible.
- gzread 7mo ago
  Their life is in danger and one particular journalist is making it so
- choo-t 7mo ago
  Well, if they deserve anonymity, they also deserve to be able to protect it, and they have really few tools against a doxxing, the DDOS was one of them, corrupting the archived article was another, albeit dangerous for their own reputation as an archiver. The crux of the problem was the doxxing, not the defense against it.
  - ajam1507 7mo ago
    You don’t think leveraging your site to DDOS someone is a problem? Do people not also deserve to be protected from being DDOSed? Do people also not deserve to not have their internet traffic be used to DDOS someone?
    - choo-t 7mo ago
      > You don’t think leveraging your site to DDOS someone is a problem? It is, but it's one of the only tools they have to prevent the doxxing site to being reachable. > Do people not also deserve to be protected from being DDOSed? You mean the person doing the doing should be protected ? >Do people also not deserve to not have their internet traffic be used to DDOS someone? Yes, it should have been opt-in. But unless you doesn't run JS, you kinda give right to the website you visit to run arbitrary code anyway.
    - kpcyrd 7mo ago
      You don't think non-consensually revealing somebody's identity is a problem? Resorting to DDoS is not pretty, but "why is my violent behavior met with violence" is a little oblivious and reversal of victim and perpetrator roles.
      - ajam1507 7mo ago
        > You don't think non-consensually revealing somebody's identity is a problem? I do think it’s a problem. You are the only one excusing bad behavior here.
        deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
      - Dylan16807 7mo ago
        If it's information that's medium-difficult to get, and the only people that would use the information to cause harm can easily put in more effort than that, then I don't think it's "violence" to post that information.
    - psychoslave 7mo ago
      Not defending any party, it's basic ethological expectation: a creature that try to beat an other should expect aggressive response in return. Of course, never aggressing anyone and transform any aggression agaisnt self into an opportunity to acculturate the aggressor into someone with the same empathic behavior is a paragon of virtuous entity. But paragons of virtue is not the median norm, by definition.
- Obscurity4340 7mo ago
  I had no idea that was the actual situation (journalist trying to hunt them down). Sorta changes the moral calculus, I'll allow it
- rdevilla 7mo ago
  This is great. Journalists are impeding the preservation of the historical record by blocking archivist traffic while simultaneously manhunting those archivists who find ways around their authwalls. Soon the news and the historical facts will be unnecessary. You can simply receive your wisdom from the AIs, which, as nondeterministic systems, are free to change the facts at will.
  - Permit 7mo ago
    >This is great. Journalists are impeding the preservation of the historical record by blocking archivist traffic while simultaneously manhunting those archivists who find ways around their authwalls. You are deliberately misrepresenting the situation. The journalists who block archivist traffic are not in any way connected to the blogger who was attempting to investigate the creator of archive.is. You have portrayed them as related in an attempt to garner sympathy for the creator of archive.is. Here is an account of the facts: https://gyrovague.com/2026/02/01/archive-today-is-directing-a-ddos-attack-against-my-blog/ https://gyrovague.com/2026/02/01/archive-today-is-directing-...
    - ThoAppelsin 7mo ago
      Thanks for this. I didn’t know about the details, and there are probably mor... but this gyrovague person is clearly being a privileged trouble. Their “boringly straightforward curiosity” is an admittance of their shallow thinking. When you are pointed out that you’re hurting someone in some respect that you weren’t intentional about, you should stop, sit down, and reconsider everything in that respect. You may end up deciding to continue inflicting harm, intentionally so this time---that is a perfectly valid course to take. But you cannot anymore remain unintentional about it.
      - ImPostingOnHN 7mo ago
        > When you are pointed out that you’re hurting someone in some respect that you weren’t intentional about, you should stop, sit down, and reconsider everything in that respect. > You may end up deciding to continue inflicting harm, intentionally so this time---that is a perfectly valid course to take. But you cannot anymore remain unintentional about it. To be clear, are you talking about the harm of commanding a botnet (which includes you and me) to attack an investigative journalist for investigatively journaling?
- staticassertion 7mo ago
  They're terrible for not wanting to be dox'd?
  - philistine 7mo ago
    They’re terrible for turning all of us into parts of a botnet DDOS someone doing their job. I don’t understand how DDOS is the correct tool for anyone to protect their anonymity.
    - staticassertion 7mo ago
      It sounds like DDOS is the tool they had available. I'm currently ambivalent on using user traffic to perform a DDOS.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
8cvor6j844qw_d6 7mo ago
Agreed, and if archive.is goes down, archive.org becomes the de facto monopoly in web archival. That's a problem because archive.org honors removal requests from site owners. Buy an old domain and you can theoretically wipe its archived history clean.
- charcircuit 7mo ago
  Alternatively, it leaves a vacuum for an archive site that doesn't take things down like archive.org to exist and a new one takes its place as the defacto one.

This is why archive.is was created. Should we stop trying to hunt down and punish its creator and support it as the extremely useful project that it is?

by gzread 7mo ago

This is why archive.is was created. Should we stop trying to hunt down and punish its creator and support it as the extremely useful project that it is?

philistine 7mo ago

The creator can maintain anonymity. The creator does not deserve to continue being celebrated when they embarked on a DDOS campaign using the traffic of archive.is against a journalist trying to uncover their identity. By these actions, they have shown to be capricious, vindictive, and willing to ensnare their users in their DDOS of others. Whoever they are, they’re terrible.

MSFT_Edging 7mo ago
If there's ever something a journalist would never ever do, it's destroy someone's life for a headline. Never ever. Totally impossible.
gzread 7mo ago
Their life is in danger and one particular journalist is making it so
choo-t 7mo ago
Well, if they deserve anonymity, they also deserve to be able to protect it, and they have really few tools against a doxxing, the DDOS was one of them, corrupting the archived article was another, albeit dangerous for their own reputation as an archiver. The crux of the problem was the doxxing, not the defense against it.
- ajam1507 7mo ago
  You don’t think leveraging your site to DDOS someone is a problem? Do people not also deserve to be protected from being DDOSed? Do people also not deserve to not have their internet traffic be used to DDOS someone?
  - choo-t 7mo ago
    > You don’t think leveraging your site to DDOS someone is a problem? It is, but it's one of the only tools they have to prevent the doxxing site to being reachable. > Do people not also deserve to be protected from being DDOSed? You mean the person doing the doing should be protected ? >Do people also not deserve to not have their internet traffic be used to DDOS someone? Yes, it should have been opt-in. But unless you doesn't run JS, you kinda give right to the website you visit to run arbitrary code anyway.
  - kpcyrd 7mo ago
    You don't think non-consensually revealing somebody's identity is a problem? Resorting to DDoS is not pretty, but "why is my violent behavior met with violence" is a little oblivious and reversal of victim and perpetrator roles.
    - ajam1507 7mo ago
      > You don't think non-consensually revealing somebody's identity is a problem? I do think it’s a problem. You are the only one excusing bad behavior here.
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
    - Dylan16807 7mo ago
      If it's information that's medium-difficult to get, and the only people that would use the information to cause harm can easily put in more effort than that, then I don't think it's "violence" to post that information.
  - psychoslave 7mo ago
    Not defending any party, it's basic ethological expectation: a creature that try to beat an other should expect aggressive response in return. Of course, never aggressing anyone and transform any aggression agaisnt self into an opportunity to acculturate the aggressor into someone with the same empathic behavior is a paragon of virtuous entity. But paragons of virtue is not the median norm, by definition.
Obscurity4340 7mo ago
I had no idea that was the actual situation (journalist trying to hunt them down). Sorta changes the moral calculus, I'll allow it
rdevilla 7mo ago
This is great. Journalists are impeding the preservation of the historical record by blocking archivist traffic while simultaneously manhunting those archivists who find ways around their authwalls. Soon the news and the historical facts will be unnecessary. You can simply receive your wisdom from the AIs, which, as nondeterministic systems, are free to change the facts at will.
- Permit 7mo ago
  >This is great. Journalists are impeding the preservation of the historical record by blocking archivist traffic while simultaneously manhunting those archivists who find ways around their authwalls. You are deliberately misrepresenting the situation. The journalists who block archivist traffic are not in any way connected to the blogger who was attempting to investigate the creator of archive.is. You have portrayed them as related in an attempt to garner sympathy for the creator of archive.is. Here is an account of the facts: https://gyrovague.com/2026/02/01/archive-today-is-directing-a-ddos-attack-against-my-blog/ https://gyrovague.com/2026/02/01/archive-today-is-directing-...
  - ThoAppelsin 7mo ago
    Thanks for this. I didn’t know about the details, and there are probably mor... but this gyrovague person is clearly being a privileged trouble. Their “boringly straightforward curiosity” is an admittance of their shallow thinking. When you are pointed out that you’re hurting someone in some respect that you weren’t intentional about, you should stop, sit down, and reconsider everything in that respect. You may end up deciding to continue inflicting harm, intentionally so this time---that is a perfectly valid course to take. But you cannot anymore remain unintentional about it.
    - ImPostingOnHN 7mo ago
      > When you are pointed out that you’re hurting someone in some respect that you weren’t intentional about, you should stop, sit down, and reconsider everything in that respect. > You may end up deciding to continue inflicting harm, intentionally so this time---that is a perfectly valid course to take. But you cannot anymore remain unintentional about it. To be clear, are you talking about the harm of commanding a botnet (which includes you and me) to attack an investigative journalist for investigatively journaling?
staticassertion 7mo ago
They're terrible for not wanting to be dox'd?
- philistine 7mo ago
  They’re terrible for turning all of us into parts of a botnet DDOS someone doing their job. I don’t understand how DDOS is the correct tool for anyone to protect their anonymity.
  - staticassertion 7mo ago
    It sounds like DDOS is the tool they had available. I'm currently ambivalent on using user traffic to perform a DDOS.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

8cvor6j844qw_d6 7mo ago

Agreed, and if archive.is goes down, archive.org becomes the de facto monopoly in web archival. That's a problem because archive.org honors removal requests from site owners. Buy an old domain and you can theoretically wipe its archived history clean.

charcircuit 7mo ago
Alternatively, it leaves a vacuum for an archive site that doesn't take things down like archive.org to exist and a new one takes its place as the defacto one.