4 ms·

>This is great. Journalists are impeding the preservation of the historical record by blocking archivist traffic while simultaneously manhunting those archivist

by 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?
  - ThoAppelsin 7mo ago
    It seems like a non-question, but I’ll bite: No. I’m talking about the harm the investigative journalist is doing to the anonymous operator of archive.today by compromising their anonymity and promoting this. You can’t “investigatively journal” to someone’s detriment and say “I was just doing my job ;)”. You can say “I was just curious” (which is “I was unaware” in disguise), but now you are pointed out and are aware, so you must just decide. And the decision seems to be intentionally do the harm and be insincere about it. Personally, my primary annoyance is with the latter, that they are being insincere about it.
    - ImPostingOnHN 7mo ago
      > You can’t “investigatively journal” to someone’s detriment and say “I was just doing my job ;)”. That description seems to encompass most useful investigative journalism, so I'm not sure it is a useful distinction that an investigation is unpalatable to someone (usually the investigatee). Suppose we ignore that for a moment, though: it does not justify attacking the investigative journalist, nor does it justify surreptitiously using my computer as part of a botnet to do so.
      - ThoAppelsin 7mo ago
        > it does not justify attacking the investigative journalist 1. Person A hits Person B. 2. Person B hits Person A in return. Is it ok that Person B hit Person A? I don’t know. I don’t think so. People would unanimously agree, however, that Person A making the first hit makes Person B’s hit more understandable, and that Person A is relatively more to blame here. So, yeah, I agree: the attack from archivist isn’t justified by the attack from the journalist. It is, however, made more understandable by it. As for what counts as attack: I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call DDoS to a blog an “attack”. It’s more like a protest. And I think the users of the service would in general not mind taking part in that effortless protest against the actor that is being hostile against the service’s continued operation. Sadly, it backlashed quite a bit, it appears. People took the words “DDoS” and “botnet” as something much more serious than what they actually entail in this situation, probably because they sound very obscure and vile.
freedomben 7mo ago
Indeed. I am highly supportive of archive.is, but let's remember that he hijacked his own users to become a bot net. That should make all us hackers furious. Is a complete violation of trust. Our residential IPs were used to attack someone, meaning he put us all at risk for his own personal goals. It's disgusting behavior and he should be called out for it. But we should also realize he's offering an important and free service to us all. I support him, but this is not something we should just ignore. Trust is very important.
- mikkupikku 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Permit 7mo ago
    > Being left beaten and bleeding in an alley to get a small taste of what life has to offer would do him a lot of good This is unhinged.
    - mikkupikku 7mo ago
      [flagged]
- charcircuit 7mo ago
  Review the definition of botnet. That is not what was done.
heavyset_go 7mo ago
I didn't think I was going to side with the DDoS-er, but considering what happened with Aaron Schwartz, that blogger was trying to get them killed or put in a box forever.
- gzread 7mo ago
  [flagged]

by Permit 7mo ago

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?
- ThoAppelsin 7mo ago
  It seems like a non-question, but I’ll bite: No. I’m talking about the harm the investigative journalist is doing to the anonymous operator of archive.today by compromising their anonymity and promoting this. You can’t “investigatively journal” to someone’s detriment and say “I was just doing my job ;)”. You can say “I was just curious” (which is “I was unaware” in disguise), but now you are pointed out and are aware, so you must just decide. And the decision seems to be intentionally do the harm and be insincere about it. Personally, my primary annoyance is with the latter, that they are being insincere about it.
  - ImPostingOnHN 7mo ago
    > You can’t “investigatively journal” to someone’s detriment and say “I was just doing my job ;)”. That description seems to encompass most useful investigative journalism, so I'm not sure it is a useful distinction that an investigation is unpalatable to someone (usually the investigatee). Suppose we ignore that for a moment, though: it does not justify attacking the investigative journalist, nor does it justify surreptitiously using my computer as part of a botnet to do so.
    - ThoAppelsin 7mo ago
      > it does not justify attacking the investigative journalist 1. Person A hits Person B. 2. Person B hits Person A in return. Is it ok that Person B hit Person A? I don’t know. I don’t think so. People would unanimously agree, however, that Person A making the first hit makes Person B’s hit more understandable, and that Person A is relatively more to blame here. So, yeah, I agree: the attack from archivist isn’t justified by the attack from the journalist. It is, however, made more understandable by it. As for what counts as attack: I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call DDoS to a blog an “attack”. It’s more like a protest. And I think the users of the service would in general not mind taking part in that effortless protest against the actor that is being hostile against the service’s continued operation. Sadly, it backlashed quite a bit, it appears. People took the words “DDoS” and “botnet” as something much more serious than what they actually entail in this situation, probably because they sound very obscure and vile.

freedomben 7mo ago

Indeed. I am highly supportive of archive.is, but let's remember that he hijacked his own users to become a bot net. That should make all us hackers furious. Is a complete violation of trust. Our residential IPs were used to attack someone, meaning he put us all at risk for his own personal goals. It's disgusting behavior and he should be called out for it. But we should also realize he's offering an important and free service to us all. I support him, but this is not something we should just ignore. Trust is very important.

mikkupikku 7mo ago
[flagged]
- Permit 7mo ago
  > Being left beaten and bleeding in an alley to get a small taste of what life has to offer would do him a lot of good This is unhinged.
  - mikkupikku 7mo ago
    [flagged]
charcircuit 7mo ago
Review the definition of botnet. That is not what was done.

heavyset_go 7mo ago

I didn't think I was going to side with the DDoS-er, but considering what happened with Aaron Schwartz, that blogger was trying to get them killed or put in a box forever.

gzread 7mo ago
[flagged]