3 ms·

One site was doing that which archive in their name but wasn't apart of archive.org

• sam_lowry_ 16d ago
  archive.is or archive.today? Why being shy in the era of stealing AI?
  • LoganDark 16d ago
    archive.today uses clients to perform DDoS, I would not recommend using their site.
    • schnebbau 16d ago
      Let's all just believe this baseless assertion shall we. You have to include more than that, this isn't common knowledge.
      • LoganDark 16d ago
        <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidance#Why_are_we_doing_this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...> for those without a search engine.
        • DonHopkins 16d ago
          Or rather for those like schnebbau pretending they don't have access to a search engine.
      • x______________ 16d ago
        Sure it is! This has been going on for years and global attention was gained at the beginning of this one.[0] Wikipedia deprecates Archive.today, starts removing archive links (arstechnica.com) 616 points by nobody9999 6 months ago | hide | past | favorite | 368 comments 0 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006
      • jimmydorry 16d ago
        It's been posted multiple times of the last few months as they were removed from wikipedia and cloudflare. [1] [2] [3] 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46843805 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46843805 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47474255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47474255
      • gpvos 16d ago
        This is well-known. If you are very sure it's not happening anymore, please provide a reputable source.
      • DonHopkins 16d ago
        You can't make other people forget things by declaring yourself ignorant of the facts.
        • throw10920 16d ago
          I literally had never heard of this before. I don't check HN every single day. It's extremely reasonable to ask for a link, very easy to include one when making a claim, and attacking someone for asking for evidence is extremely anti-intellectual independent of the level of effort required. (n.b. that doesn't excuse the hostile way that they asked for proof - "Let's all just believe this baseless assertion shall we")
          • DonHopkins 16d ago
            [dead]
            • LoganDark 16d ago
              They were pointing out the lack of evidence on my part. I agree it was rude but I don't think it's helpful to start calling it misinformation with no evidence. They had a valid point that not everybody Just Knows already, hence why I did reply with a link. I don't think it's constructive to jab much more than I did in that reply.
              • throw10920 15d ago
                And thank you for sending that link, because it was extremely useful and detail-packed.
  • mitxela 16d ago
    In some parts of the internet you can't mention a pirate site (or left wing stuff, anything sexual, or Palestine) without being banned. HN isn't one of them, but people have learned to be overly cautious.