3 ms·

The links are usually to Archive.today (aka archive.ph and a bunch of other domains), not Wayback Machine (which is run by Internet Archive).

petcat 11d ago
ehh it's a distinction without a difference. The point is that alternative links are available to circumvent paid access for anyone that wants them.
- organsnyder 11d ago
  They're different sites, with different goals, run by different people.
  - petcat 11d ago
    That provide the same functional service.... Hence, distinction without a difference.
    - fluffybucktsnek 11d ago
      Given that the root of the discussion is about Internet Archive being hit with huge traffic and not the functionalities provided by Wayback Machine, it very much is a distinction with a difference.
      - petcat 11d ago
        Bot traffic or human traffic doesn't matter. The goal is to read websites without having your own access. So Internet Archive, Archive.today, Archive.ph, etc. are all just means to the same end.
        HDBaseT 10d ago
        I think you have the wrong impression of the Internet Archive. The internet archive is not designed to circumvent anything. It is not designed to "grant access without having your own access".
        fluffybucktsnek 10d ago
        Internet Archive's traffic may not matter to you, but that's the main topic of this discussion, regardless of what you care or use website archival tools for.
        publlus_enigma 10d ago
        I suspect you may be conflating two different things. Archive.org exists to preserve historical snapshots of the public parts of websites, and not to bypass subscriptions or pay walls.
    - celsoazevedo 11d ago
      They are 2 different services, run by different people, one goes out of their way to bypass paywalls while the other doesn't, one is banned by Wikipedia and the other isn't, etc. I think it's a distinction worth making. Not to mention that the Wayback Machine itself isn't exactly a good tool to bypass paywalls as most paid sites don't let them archive paywalled content anyway.
    - rpdillon 11d ago
      Yeah, you're mistaken. One archives web pages, the other maintains a list of paid-access accounts and fetches information from behind paywalls as a service.
      - DaSHacka 10d ago
        Exactly this archive.org is the more straight-laced archive that doesn't circumvent sites that try to block it, and removes content they deem 'problematic' even if not illegal or requested by the site owner. Meanwhile archive.today/ph/is/etc is the guerrilla alternative run by a die-hard datahoarder that seeks to archive the information itself, bypassing whatever blockers/login pages/whathaveyou to achieve the result. It's nice to have both options. When I archive a site, I usually use both for added resiliency.
    - mitxela 10d ago
      No they don't. Archive.org is co-operative, it respects robots.txt and allows deletion. It's also very slow. Archive.* is adversarial and archives sites that don't like it. That's why the FBI is trying to take it down.
- sandcat_ 11d ago
  That isn’t the point being discussed. The point being discussed is that it’s bad form to abuse a service (archive.org) that is provided for free, for the public good in order to run commercial scraping operations.
  - petcat 11d ago
    It's bad form to scrape the scrapers?
    - sandcat_ 11d ago
      Yes, arguably, and for reasons I already gave. I’d genuinely spend a bit more time reading and thinking rather than replying. Your replies are pithy but you’re missing details and frankly making cognitive mistakes. (Apologies if this seems harsh, I don’t mean it as an insult, but this thread has blown up entirely unnecessarily- and yes, I know I’m not helping either!)
      - petcat 11d ago
        You seem to think that scraping websites "for the public good" is somehow different than scraping websites for any other reason. The end result is exactly the same.
        DaSHacka 10d ago
        The minuscule traffic generated by the wayback machine, which serves to preserve the content for years to come, is completely incomparable to the scrapers that hammer every single href linked on a website.
        sippingabonedry 10d ago
        You missed the XCancel flamewar yesterday. The consensus is we should be allowed to scrape data and bypass login walls if we dislike the site owner, or feel we are owed free access by arbitrary criteria, it's sort of an unwritten rule. Unless of course it's Google or Meta properties we're talking about because that might impact RSUs.
eek2121 10d ago
Correct:Also, archive.* has actively edited archived sites to promote their agenda. Why folks continue to use them confuses me. One would think the big wikipedia purge would curb such behavior.
- DaSHacka 10d ago
  Ironically, your framing of the situation is infinitely more disingenuous to push a personal agenda versus anything the archive.today guy did.
- normie3000 10d ago
  > Why folks continue to use them confuses me. I use them. I haven't ever heard mention that the content is edited. Do you have a source?
  - uqers 10d ago
    See https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-might-blacklist-archive-today-after-site-maintainer-ddosed-a-blog/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-might-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidance#Why_are_we_doing_this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...? Besides tampering with content, the site was also using visitors to DDOS a blog that mentioned the owner of archive.today.
    - sam_lowry_ 10d ago
      [dead]
  - Mogzol 10d ago
    See the "Background" section of the Wikipedia RFC on banning archive.today links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... They bulk replaced one string (a name) with another one across many archived pages, and added malicious code to all archive pages that would rapidly send requests to gyrovague.com in an attempt to DDOS them.
Anonyneko 10d ago
Which sucks because these just don't work for me for some reason (Finland, no luck with VPNs either).

petcat 11d ago

ehh it's a distinction without a difference. The point is that alternative links are available to circumvent paid access for anyone that wants them.

organsnyder 11d ago
They're different sites, with different goals, run by different people.
- petcat 11d ago
  That provide the same functional service.... Hence, distinction without a difference.
  - fluffybucktsnek 11d ago
    Given that the root of the discussion is about Internet Archive being hit with huge traffic and not the functionalities provided by Wayback Machine, it very much is a distinction with a difference.
    - petcat 11d ago
      Bot traffic or human traffic doesn't matter. The goal is to read websites without having your own access. So Internet Archive, Archive.today, Archive.ph, etc. are all just means to the same end.
      - HDBaseT 10d ago
        I think you have the wrong impression of the Internet Archive. The internet archive is not designed to circumvent anything. It is not designed to "grant access without having your own access".
      - fluffybucktsnek 10d ago
        Internet Archive's traffic may not matter to you, but that's the main topic of this discussion, regardless of what you care or use website archival tools for.
      - publlus_enigma 10d ago
        I suspect you may be conflating two different things. Archive.org exists to preserve historical snapshots of the public parts of websites, and not to bypass subscriptions or pay walls.
  - celsoazevedo 11d ago
    They are 2 different services, run by different people, one goes out of their way to bypass paywalls while the other doesn't, one is banned by Wikipedia and the other isn't, etc. I think it's a distinction worth making. Not to mention that the Wayback Machine itself isn't exactly a good tool to bypass paywalls as most paid sites don't let them archive paywalled content anyway.
  - rpdillon 11d ago
    Yeah, you're mistaken. One archives web pages, the other maintains a list of paid-access accounts and fetches information from behind paywalls as a service.
    - DaSHacka 10d ago
      Exactly this archive.org is the more straight-laced archive that doesn't circumvent sites that try to block it, and removes content they deem 'problematic' even if not illegal or requested by the site owner. Meanwhile archive.today/ph/is/etc is the guerrilla alternative run by a die-hard datahoarder that seeks to archive the information itself, bypassing whatever blockers/login pages/whathaveyou to achieve the result. It's nice to have both options. When I archive a site, I usually use both for added resiliency.
  - mitxela 10d ago
    No they don't. Archive.org is co-operative, it respects robots.txt and allows deletion. It's also very slow. Archive.* is adversarial and archives sites that don't like it. That's why the FBI is trying to take it down.
sandcat_ 11d ago
That isn’t the point being discussed. The point being discussed is that it’s bad form to abuse a service (archive.org) that is provided for free, for the public good in order to run commercial scraping operations.
- petcat 11d ago
  It's bad form to scrape the scrapers?
  - sandcat_ 11d ago
    Yes, arguably, and for reasons I already gave. I’d genuinely spend a bit more time reading and thinking rather than replying. Your replies are pithy but you’re missing details and frankly making cognitive mistakes. (Apologies if this seems harsh, I don’t mean it as an insult, but this thread has blown up entirely unnecessarily- and yes, I know I’m not helping either!)
    - petcat 11d ago
      You seem to think that scraping websites "for the public good" is somehow different than scraping websites for any other reason. The end result is exactly the same.
      - DaSHacka 10d ago
        The minuscule traffic generated by the wayback machine, which serves to preserve the content for years to come, is completely incomparable to the scrapers that hammer every single href linked on a website.
      - sippingabonedry 10d ago
        You missed the XCancel flamewar yesterday. The consensus is we should be allowed to scrape data and bypass login walls if we dislike the site owner, or feel we are owed free access by arbitrary criteria, it's sort of an unwritten rule. Unless of course it's Google or Meta properties we're talking about because that might impact RSUs.

eek2121 10d ago

Correct:Also, archive.* has actively edited archived sites to promote their agenda. Why folks continue to use them confuses me. One would think the big wikipedia purge would curb such behavior.

DaSHacka 10d ago
Ironically, your framing of the situation is infinitely more disingenuous to push a personal agenda versus anything the archive.today guy did.
normie3000 10d ago
> Why folks continue to use them confuses me. I use them. I haven't ever heard mention that the content is edited. Do you have a source?
- uqers 10d ago
  See https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-might-blacklist-archive-today-after-site-maintainer-ddosed-a-blog/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-might-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidance#Why_are_we_doing_this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...? Besides tampering with content, the site was also using visitors to DDOS a blog that mentioned the owner of archive.today.
  - sam_lowry_ 10d ago
    [dead]
- Mogzol 10d ago
  See the "Background" section of the Wikipedia RFC on banning archive.today links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... They bulk replaced one string (a name) with another one across many archived pages, and added malicious code to all archive pages that would rapidly send requests to gyrovague.com in an attempt to DDOS them.

Anonyneko 10d ago

Which sucks because these just don't work for me for some reason (Finland, no luck with VPNs either).