[ahhhhnoooo]

They have posted twice in four years. Once doing some digging into who runs archive today, and a second time to respond to a ddos attack.

Writing about being ddos'd seems eminently reasonable. So if you elide that, you are talking about a single article in four years.

It's genuinely nothing.

[JasonADrury]

The purpose of a thing is what it does.

[throwingcookies]

> The purpose of a thing is what it does.

What is the purpose of the DDoS JS in the archive website then? Not DDoS?

[JasonADrury]

I'm sure it's DDoS, just like the purpose of gyrovague.com is to attack archive.today

Easy stuff, no?

[ahhhhnoooo]

Attack? Did we read the same one article? One article is clearly defensive. The other is a piece of investigative journalism about who and how the site is run.

Neither of those is an attack.

[JasonADrury]

Of course attempting to dox someone is an attack.

[throwingcookies]

> Of course attempting to dox someone is an attack.

That's not how the judicative system works.

[ahhhhnoooo]

That might be true! But I don't think anyone in this story did that.