I see WP is not proposing to run its own.
Like Wikipedia?
Oh good. That's definitely a reasonable thing to do or think.
The raw sociopathy of some people. Getting doxxed isn't good, but this response is unhinged.
In response to J.P's blog already framed AT as project grown from a carding forum + pushed his speculations onto ArsTechnica, whose parent company just destroyed 12ft and is on to a new victim. The story is full of untold conflicts of interests covered with soap opera around DDoS.
We live at a moment where it's trivially easy to frame possession of an unsavory (or even illegal) number on another person's storage media, without that person even realizing (and possibly, with some WebRTC craftiness and social engineering, even get them to pass on the taboo payload to others).
With this said, I also disagree with turning everyone that uses archive[.]today into a botnet that DDoS sites. Changing the content of archived pages also raises questions about the authenticity of what we're reading.
The site behaves as if it was infected by some malware and the archived pages can't be trusted. I can see why Wikipedia made this decision.
This is absolutely the buried lede of this whole saga, and needs to be the focus of conversation in the coming age.
Archive.today is directing a DDoS attack against my blog?
chrisjj•1h ago
Oh? Do tell!
nobody9999•1h ago
>Oh? Do tell!
They do. In the very next paragraph in fact:
chrisjj•1h ago
> editors can remove Archive.today links when the original source is still online and has identical content
Hopeless. Just begs for alteration.
> a different archive site, like the Internet Archive,
Hopeless. It allows archive tampering by the page's own JS and archive deletion by the domain owner.
> Ghostarchive, or Megalodon
Hopeless. Coverage is insignificant.
nobody9999•45m ago
I did so. You're welcome.
As for the rest, take it up with Jimmy Wiles, not me.
Kim_Bruning•39m ago
Hopeless. Caught tampering the archive.
The whole situation is not great.