5 ms·
You’re just not at all familiar with the subject. Archive.org is awful. It allows site owners and random third parties to edit old archived pages. Archive.to
by walletdrainer 7mo ago
You’re just not at all familiar with the subject.
Archive.org is awful. It allows site owners and random third parties to edit old archived pages.
Archive.today does not.
- Hamuko 7mo agoIs it that much better that Archive.today reserves the right to edit old archived pages for the owner whenever they have a petty grudge with someone? At least site owners have the copyright on the pages that Archive.org saves. They can just get the content pulled through DMCA anyway.
- walletdrainer 7mo agoAre you for real? The operator of archive.today (presumably one, at most a handful of people) can edit archived pages on archive.today Literally anyone can edit archived pages on archive.org. There are literally at least hundreds of thousands of tampered archives on archive.org. How is that not worse than the couple of tampered archives on archive.today?
- ddydjjffntn 7mo agoFolks keep saying this Do you actually mean edit or do you just mean delete Both are problematic, but falsifying a historic record is orders of magnitude worse than deleting one, and conflating them would be extremely dishonest
- walletdrainer 7mo agoArchive.org lets archived pages pull in JavaScript from the non-archived internet, so it’s only trustworthy if viewed with JavaScript disabled.
- InsideOutSanta 7mo ago> You’re just not at all familiar with the subject. Not true >Archive.org is awful. It allows site owners and random third parties to edit old archived pages. Also not true. However, Archive.today edits archived pages itself.
- walletdrainer 7mo agoIt’s true https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47096013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47096013
- InsideOutSanta 7mo agoIf that is the only evidence you have, then it proves the opposite of your point.