[InsideOutSanta]

It's not just problematic content, it's criminal behavior. And the site has a bad reputation for archival, given that the owner altered the content of archived articles.

[charcircuit]

The site commits copyright infringement by showing you content it doesn't have the rights for. This is not the kind of site to go on about morals for.

>the site has a bad reputation

Not compared to archive.org. archive.is has a much better track record.

[InsideOutSanta]

I'm not sure whether you're making a joke or confusing the two websites.

[walletdrainer]

You’re just not at all familiar with the subject.

Archive.org is awful. It allows site owners and random third parties to edit old archived pages.

Archive.today does not.

[Hamuko]

Is it that much better that Archive.today reserves the right to edit old archived pages for the owner whenever they have a petty grudge with someone?

At least site owners have the copyright on the pages that Archive.org saves. They can just get the content pulled through DMCA anyway.

[walletdrainer]

Are you for real?

The operator of archive.today (presumably one, at most a handful of people) can edit archived pages on archive.today

Literally anyone can edit archived pages on archive.org.

There are literally at least hundreds of thousands of tampered archives on archive.org. How is that not worse than the couple of tampered archives on archive.today?

[InsideOutSanta]

> You’re just not at all familiar with the subject.

Not true

>Archive.org is awful. It allows site owners and random third parties to edit old archived pages.

Also not true. However, Archive.today edits archived pages itself.

[walletdrainer]

It’s true https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47096013

[InsideOutSanta]

If that is the only evidence you have, then it proves the opposite of your point.

[ddydjjffntn]

Folks keep saying this

Do you actually mean edit or do you just mean delete

Both are problematic, but falsifying a historic record is orders of magnitude worse than deleting one, and conflating them would be extremely dishonest

[walletdrainer]

Archive.org lets archived pages pull in JavaScript from the non-archived internet, so it’s only trustworthy if viewed with JavaScript disabled.

[JasonADrury]

>It's not just problematic content, it's criminal behavior.

How is that supposed to be a big deal when the one of core services archive.today provides is obviously illegal anyway?

[InsideOutSanta]

I'm not sure how illegal copyright violations really are, given that all major tech companies are doing it. DDoS attacks, on the other hand, are pretty clear-cut.

I also think "but they also do that other crime" doesn't help their case.

[JasonADrury]

I think the DDoS is clearly problematic, I just don't think it's problematic because it's criminal.

It's problematic because it's childish and pointlessly degrades the user experience.