5 ms·

archive that won't hijack your back button https://archive.is/Td9AR https://archive.is/Td9AR

• PcChip 4mo ago
  Why do our browsers even allow that?
  • sheept 4mo ago
    For websites like Gmail when you open an email
  • herpdyderp 4mo ago
    When done properly you don't even notice! It is very beneficial when needed. But, as we know, very awful when done improperly.
    • nofunsir 4mo ago
      > When done properly you don't even notice! This lame argument should be added to the List of Fallacies. It's used everywhere as a "wild card" argument. > Makeup > MLB Pitch Framing by catchers > Surveillance States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies?useskin=vect...
      • lazyasciiart 4mo ago
        When it’s used properly you don’t even notice it. Like plumbing.
  • hkt 4mo ago
    To enable JavaScript crapware
• Cider9986 4mo ago
  Huh, it seems to try to take my back button and it pretends that there is history if I open it in a new tab, but if I click on it from HN it lets me go back. But I can also see it trying to create history. Maybe it's a Brave feature idk.
• andrybak 4mo ago
  archive.is is one of the domains of archive.today, which used its end users for a DDOS attack on a blog. This caused English Wikipedia to deprecate it with the end goal of blacklisting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...
  • arcanemachiner 4mo ago
    Complaining about bad people is fun, don't get me wrong... but your post doesn't contain an alternative archive link. You're just siphoning people into your soapbox.
    • BeetleB 4mo ago
      Just like complaining about Amazon (be it as an employer or as a service provider), without providing an alternative, is siphoning people into a soapbox? I, for one, found out about the archive.* situation recently, and am totally glad someone like the commenter pointed it out. My wanting to bypass paywalls to read content doesn't justify supporting the owner's behavior - not even close.
    • saghm 4mo ago
      The link they did include seems to have a pretty comprehensive list of alternatives. Complaining can be fun, but it doesn't really make sense to penalize them for not being prescriptive about alternatives when the exact point they're trying to make is specific resources for this sort of thing can be prone to abuse.
  • ninjagoo 4mo ago
    > archive.is is one of the domains of archive.today, which used its end users for a DDOS attack on a blog. Please provide evidence for your claim. The wiki rfc [5] that you linked doesn't provide any DDOS evidence at all, which is odd for wikipedia. > This caused English Wikipedia to deprecate it with the end goal of blacklisting This appears to be a concerted effort to blacklist archive.today by unknown actors. There were at least 3 attempts with odd efforts to sway the vote [1][2][3] (the notes in the sidebars at those Wiki RFCs document these actions by bots and others), and a successful attempt to undo the blacklist [4], and then yet another attempt [5]. I'm curious as to why you did not include this very relevant background information in your comment? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment...