3 ms·

Um. You mean the same site that uses its captcha page to DDOS sites the owner doesn't agree with, and was banned from use on Wikipedia because the owner was mod

Um. You mean the same site that uses its captcha page to DDOS sites the owner doesn't agree with, and was banned from use on Wikipedia because the owner was modifying the archived pages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today#2026_attack_on_Gyrovague_and_Wikipedia's_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today#2026_attack_on_G... I don't think we should be supporting this random guy, no.

andai 26d ago
Well then another guy should provide a technically equivalent and morally superior service ;)
- markasoftware 26d ago
  I mean, lots of other archive.* sites exist and do the same thing minus problematic behavior, such as archive.is, archive.oh (though maybe some are operated by the same individual...)
  - plorg 26d ago
    Are any of those not run by the archive.today guy? That site has like a dozen aliases.
  - Cider9986 26d ago
    Wikipedia links these as the mirrors. archive.today archive.fo archive.is archive.li archive.md archive.ph archive.vn archiveiya74codqgiixo33q62qlrqtkgmcitqx5u2oeqnmn5bpcbiyd.onion
  - topato 26d ago
    Haha all of those are .today aliases. Not sure the hate over him ddosing the guy doxxing him. .today’s paywall circumvention is also why miscellaneous groups have tried to report him to the FBI over planted CSAM material, among other horrible harassment. I think we should all give him a second chance for the huge amount of time, both before and after the stupid and short lived ddos incident, that he has dedicated to archiving. His identity must be secretive, as he has already drawn the ire of many powers that be, so… I personally think the ddos incident was justified… and I’m glad my bandwidth helped in any way, frankly. Some people seem to really want to portray him as some shady evil bad guy, and after all the hit jobs against him in the past year or two, I really wonder who these anti-archive.today people actually are and what they’re motivations are (besides money).
    - p91paul 26d ago
      I think the fact they are known to have changed the content of archived pages is way worse than the DDoS incident, since it makes them untrustworthy even as a source of information. Wikipedia decided to ban all archive.today (and aliases) links because of that
      - vachina 26d ago
        Do you have an example of such cases happening?
        p91paul 25d ago
        this is from the wikipedia discussion that led to the decision of banning it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5#Evidence_of_altering_snapshots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment...
        mitxela 25d ago
        Justifiable. Just because Wikipedia has extremely strict standards doesn't mean it isn't useful for the rest of us.
  - mitxela 25d ago
    They're all the same site.
Cider9986 26d ago
And archive.org removes perfectly legal content from their accessible archives. Nobody's perfect. The guy running archive.today has done a shit ton of good.
- hnfong 26d ago
  [flagged]
- jan_m_savage 26d ago
  My beef with IA is that none of the books as listed for borrowing are borrowable anymore. Why list it then!
  - Cider9986 25d ago
    AA is what I use.
    - jan_m_savage 24d ago
      yea alternatives pop up because there's a problem with the main. Also, i dont know why some midwit downvoted my original comment.
progval 26d ago
> to DDOS sites the owner doesn't agree with to DDOS one website, which is doxxing the owner. Not that it makes it good idea, but it's a little more understandable.
- bulder 26d ago
  DDoSing a website, modifying their archives surreptitiously to serve their own wants (which was what tipped Wikipedia towards banning their use), running weird sockpuppet campaigns to build dependence on them, and fucking with Cloudflare's DNS resolution to prevent anti-tracking measures from working. Oh and even if I wanted to ignore all of this, I couldn't use them anyways because they blackholed the majority of Finnish IP ranges after the DDoS incident to I guess punish the entire country for the targeted blogger being born here.
  - dakolli 26d ago
    archive.today has been targeted by Western institutions, like the FBI, for over a year now. Which signals to me they are the good guys.
    - SXX 26d ago
      Come on. It's not WikiLeaks. If they were targeted by FBI it would be down.
      - dakolli 26d ago
        What do you mean, I didnt make it up... Its detailed on the archive.today wikipedia page. The media barrons in the west have bribed the US government to pursue archive criminally on their behalf for helping people bypass paywalls. https://www.theverge.com/news/815691/fbi-subpoena-archive-is-owner https://www.theverge.com/news/815691/fbi-subpoena-archive-is...
        bulder 26d ago
        That's great, how does that absolve the archive.today maintainer's bad faith activities, including creating a country-wall?
forestingfisher 26d ago
If it works, it works. Also the Internet Archive also excludes many sites for ideological reasons which is the opposite of preservation
- Hamuko 26d ago
  Not sure how well it’s “working” considering any of the archived pages might be altered by the site’s administrator to further their causes. There’s a reason why Wikipedia stopped trusting them.
  - forestingfisher 26d ago
    I agree, it makes sense for large source-reliant projects like Wikipedia to stop using them. However, for the end-user, it's often the service that works best.
  - vachina 26d ago
    Please provide example of such cases?
    - Hamuko 26d ago
      https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-archive-today-after-site-executed-ddos-and-altered-web-captures/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...
      - vachina 25d ago
        Sounds like fair game. Jani is trying to destroy the archive.
        Hamuko 25d ago
        If that is the case, he succeeded since the archive totally lost all credibility in an instant.
deleted 26d ago
[deleted]
agile-gift0262 26d ago
What offends me the most is how they used visitor's compute and badnwidth for ther own purpose unrelated to the reason the visitor accessed the site, without consent or disclosure. It's MY computer, MY internet, not yours to do with it what you please

andai 26d ago

Well then another guy should provide a technically equivalent and morally superior service ;)

markasoftware 26d ago
I mean, lots of other archive.* sites exist and do the same thing minus problematic behavior, such as archive.is, archive.oh (though maybe some are operated by the same individual...)
- plorg 26d ago
  Are any of those not run by the archive.today guy? That site has like a dozen aliases.
- Cider9986 26d ago
  Wikipedia links these as the mirrors. archive.today archive.fo archive.is archive.li archive.md archive.ph archive.vn archiveiya74codqgiixo33q62qlrqtkgmcitqx5u2oeqnmn5bpcbiyd.onion
- topato 26d ago
  Haha all of those are .today aliases. Not sure the hate over him ddosing the guy doxxing him. .today’s paywall circumvention is also why miscellaneous groups have tried to report him to the FBI over planted CSAM material, among other horrible harassment. I think we should all give him a second chance for the huge amount of time, both before and after the stupid and short lived ddos incident, that he has dedicated to archiving. His identity must be secretive, as he has already drawn the ire of many powers that be, so… I personally think the ddos incident was justified… and I’m glad my bandwidth helped in any way, frankly. Some people seem to really want to portray him as some shady evil bad guy, and after all the hit jobs against him in the past year or two, I really wonder who these anti-archive.today people actually are and what they’re motivations are (besides money).
  - p91paul 26d ago
    I think the fact they are known to have changed the content of archived pages is way worse than the DDoS incident, since it makes them untrustworthy even as a source of information. Wikipedia decided to ban all archive.today (and aliases) links because of that
    - vachina 26d ago
      Do you have an example of such cases happening?
      - p91paul 25d ago
        this is from the wikipedia discussion that led to the decision of banning it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5#Evidence_of_altering_snapshots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment...
        mitxela 25d ago
        Justifiable. Just because Wikipedia has extremely strict standards doesn't mean it isn't useful for the rest of us.
- mitxela 25d ago
  They're all the same site.

Cider9986 26d ago

And archive.org removes perfectly legal content from their accessible archives. Nobody's perfect. The guy running archive.today has done a shit ton of good.

hnfong 26d ago
[flagged]
jan_m_savage 26d ago
My beef with IA is that none of the books as listed for borrowing are borrowable anymore. Why list it then!
- Cider9986 25d ago
  AA is what I use.
  - jan_m_savage 24d ago
    yea alternatives pop up because there's a problem with the main. Also, i dont know why some midwit downvoted my original comment.

progval 26d ago

> to DDOS sites the owner doesn't agree with to DDOS one website, which is doxxing the owner. Not that it makes it good idea, but it's a little more understandable.

bulder 26d ago
DDoSing a website, modifying their archives surreptitiously to serve their own wants (which was what tipped Wikipedia towards banning their use), running weird sockpuppet campaigns to build dependence on them, and fucking with Cloudflare's DNS resolution to prevent anti-tracking measures from working. Oh and even if I wanted to ignore all of this, I couldn't use them anyways because they blackholed the majority of Finnish IP ranges after the DDoS incident to I guess punish the entire country for the targeted blogger being born here.
- dakolli 26d ago
  archive.today has been targeted by Western institutions, like the FBI, for over a year now. Which signals to me they are the good guys.
  - SXX 26d ago
    Come on. It's not WikiLeaks. If they were targeted by FBI it would be down.
    - dakolli 26d ago
      What do you mean, I didnt make it up... Its detailed on the archive.today wikipedia page. The media barrons in the west have bribed the US government to pursue archive criminally on their behalf for helping people bypass paywalls. https://www.theverge.com/news/815691/fbi-subpoena-archive-is-owner https://www.theverge.com/news/815691/fbi-subpoena-archive-is...
      - bulder 26d ago
        That's great, how does that absolve the archive.today maintainer's bad faith activities, including creating a country-wall?

forestingfisher 26d ago

If it works, it works. Also the Internet Archive also excludes many sites for ideological reasons which is the opposite of preservation

Hamuko 26d ago
Not sure how well it’s “working” considering any of the archived pages might be altered by the site’s administrator to further their causes. There’s a reason why Wikipedia stopped trusting them.
- forestingfisher 26d ago
  I agree, it makes sense for large source-reliant projects like Wikipedia to stop using them. However, for the end-user, it's often the service that works best.
- vachina 26d ago
  Please provide example of such cases?
  - Hamuko 26d ago
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-archive-today-after-site-executed-ddos-and-altered-web-captures/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...
    - vachina 25d ago
      Sounds like fair game. Jani is trying to destroy the archive.
      - Hamuko 25d ago
        If that is the case, he succeeded since the archive totally lost all credibility in an instant.

deleted 26d ago

[deleted]

agile-gift0262 26d ago

What offends me the most is how they used visitor's compute and badnwidth for ther own purpose unrelated to the reason the visitor accessed the site, without consent or disclosure. It's MY computer, MY internet, not yours to do with it what you please