4 ms·

Avoid those archive sites like the plague. They are not trustworthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

Avoid those archive sites like the plague. They are not trustworthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...

apexalpha 11d ago
They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news in Economist / FT / WSJ / WashingtonPost etc... Well except paying $300 a month I guess.
- no-name-here 11d ago
  > They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news in Economist / FT / WSJ / WashingtonPost etc... > Well except paying $300 a month It looks like the WSJ is available for $2/mo or the WaPo for $2.50 mo. You probably don’t need all of them simultaneously as they frequently cover the same topics, including pretty much all of the big news stories - subscribe to one for a year then switch to another. And even if you aren’t subscribed to all of them you are still contributing in a small way to keeping good journalism alive.
  - apexalpha 11d ago
    I am already subscribed to 2 papers in my own country at ~$50 total since one comes in print once a week. Just a matter of priorities.
    - no-name-here 11d ago
      My reply was to help the grandparent commenter who said "They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news". If you already have multiple paid news subscriptions that are working great for you, you can ignore my suggestions. Edit: Ah, you were the grandparent commenter who said "They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news."
- javier2 11d ago
  its under 15$ a month...
  - mitxela 11d ago
    Each. For over 20 of them.
    - no-name-here 11d ago
      Is that sarcasm, or do you really need 20 of them? I'm an avid news reader, and there is no way I could get through even a fraction of that number of news sources daily. And isn't most major news covered by every one of the biggest news sources - one great source can accommodate the vast majority of news topics for someone, especially if they are on a tight budget.
      - mitxela 11d ago
        How do you know which ones Hacker News is going to link to?
- cluckindan 11d ago
  Except you cannot know if the system has tampered with the content you think is genuinely from those sites.
  - embedding-shape 11d ago
    Fucking sucks, what's the alternative for people without money or people who the papers/businesses don't allow them to do subscribe because of the country they're from/in?
    - no-name-here 11d ago
      Use sources such as PBS, NPR, etc. - they are available globally, and there are non-US-based sources if readers prefer.
      - embedding-shape 11d ago
        Tried searching for the submission article or even a mention of this event on their websites but I found nothing. Are you sure these are actually faithful replacements of everything that archive.is/.today unlocks for people? It's a lot of paywalls they remove, lots of stuff isn't reported elsewhere.
      - mitxela 10d ago
        Sources that.... don't post the things people are trying to read? Besides, if it's free, you're the product.
mapt 11d ago
At the bottom of that page FYI - "Note: archive.org, or web.archive.org, run by the Internet Archive and the most-used web archive on Wikipedia, is uninvolved with and entirely separate from archive.today. Please keep using archive.org"
- cluckindan 11d ago
  What’s your point? archive.is and archive.today are the same service. My ISP blocks both and I’m not even in Spain.
  - mapt 11d ago
    "those archive sites" could be read two ways, and I read it as "sites which automatically archive the Internet" the first time. This is compounded by the fact that archive.org is the only one I knew existed until now, and I kind of assumed these were alternate domains or something.
mitxela 11d ago
You get the right to say this when you make a better one. Otherwise, you're just telling people to stop accessing information.

Avoid those archive sites like the plague. They are not trustworthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...

apexalpha 11d ago

They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news in Economist / FT / WSJ / WashingtonPost etc... Well except paying $300 a month I guess.

no-name-here 11d ago
> They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news in Economist / FT / WSJ / WashingtonPost etc... > Well except paying $300 a month It looks like the WSJ is available for $2/mo or the WaPo for $2.50 mo. You probably don’t need all of them simultaneously as they frequently cover the same topics, including pretty much all of the big news stories - subscribe to one for a year then switch to another. And even if you aren’t subscribed to all of them you are still contributing in a small way to keeping good journalism alive.
- apexalpha 11d ago
  I am already subscribed to 2 papers in my own country at ~$50 total since one comes in print once a week. Just a matter of priorities.
  - no-name-here 11d ago
    My reply was to help the grandparent commenter who said "They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news". If you already have multiple paid news subscriptions that are working great for you, you can ignore my suggestions. Edit: Ah, you were the grandparent commenter who said "They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news."
javier2 11d ago
its under 15$ a month...
- mitxela 11d ago
  Each. For over 20 of them.
  - no-name-here 11d ago
    Is that sarcasm, or do you really need 20 of them? I'm an avid news reader, and there is no way I could get through even a fraction of that number of news sources daily. And isn't most major news covered by every one of the biggest news sources - one great source can accommodate the vast majority of news topics for someone, especially if they are on a tight budget.
    - mitxela 11d ago
      How do you know which ones Hacker News is going to link to?
cluckindan 11d ago
Except you cannot know if the system has tampered with the content you think is genuinely from those sites.
- embedding-shape 11d ago
  Fucking sucks, what's the alternative for people without money or people who the papers/businesses don't allow them to do subscribe because of the country they're from/in?
  - no-name-here 11d ago
    Use sources such as PBS, NPR, etc. - they are available globally, and there are non-US-based sources if readers prefer.
    - embedding-shape 11d ago
      Tried searching for the submission article or even a mention of this event on their websites but I found nothing. Are you sure these are actually faithful replacements of everything that archive.is/.today unlocks for people? It's a lot of paywalls they remove, lots of stuff isn't reported elsewhere.
    - mitxela 10d ago
      Sources that.... don't post the things people are trying to read? Besides, if it's free, you're the product.

mapt 11d ago

At the bottom of that page FYI - "Note: archive.org, or web.archive.org, run by the Internet Archive and the most-used web archive on Wikipedia, is uninvolved with and entirely separate from archive.today. Please keep using archive.org"

cluckindan 11d ago
What’s your point? archive.is and archive.today are the same service. My ISP blocks both and I’m not even in Spain.
- mapt 11d ago
  "those archive sites" could be read two ways, and I read it as "sites which automatically archive the Internet" the first time. This is compounded by the fact that archive.org is the only one I knew existed until now, and I kind of assumed these were alternate domains or something.

mitxela 11d ago

You get the right to say this when you make a better one. Otherwise, you're just telling people to stop accessing information.