You might also want to read your own link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad#Finnish_par...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Finland...
https://journal.fi/haik/article/view/139103/86888
Yes, sure, Finland had it's own complicated reasons for behaving the way it did. There's however no serious dispute about whether or not Finnish collaboration in the holocaust happened.
I wonder, why on earth would Finland have any hostility towards the USSR in 1941? It beggars belief!
From Wikipedia
> Interim peace > ... > Defensive arrangements were attempted with Sweden and the United Kingdom, but the political and military situation in the context of the Second World War rendered these efforts fruitless. Finland then turned to Nazi Germany for military aid.
We know that the impact from that time is far from worked through, but to the extent it shows up here, commenters should make the effort not to fall back into war mode.
You're welcome on HN, and so are the users you disagree with—but you all (i.e. we all) need to stay within the site guidelines when discussing tough stuff. These include: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
p.s. This comment is not just for the user I'm replying to but everyone else who's expressing strong feelings below. It's amazing, and totally human, how alive these feelings are after 80+ years, but at the same time, 80+ years of distance should give us the ability to relate to each other a little bit better than our grandfathers and great-grandfathers were able to.
I cannot make head or tail of this but it's more fascinating than the usual internecine bloodbath.
also Archive.today: on the trail of mysterious guerrilla archivists of the Internet - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37009598 August 2023
I wonder, is the newer gyrovague-com account because they lost the login for the old one? or was the old one a different person? Hopefully they can clarify, because if there's an account pretending to be them that makes this story even more confusingly weird.
Given the content, I find this suspicious.
Edit: after looking at this more closely, I have a counterintuitive (to me at least) take: I think this is interesting enough to transcend the usual categories. That is, we'd normally downweight this kind of post off the frontpage - but in this case there are so many unusual variables that the usual rules don't apply.
I say this despite having zero clue what's going on here. We do have a nose for what the HN community might find interesting (we'd bloody well better after doing this job for so long), so let's override the flags and see what happens.
But without relitigating WWII please.
I suppose I should add that we prefer archive.org links when they're available, but often they aren't.
Edit: I suppose I should also re-add that we have no knowledge of or opinion about what's going on in the dispute at hand.
I think no matter how you slice it though, it's unethical and reprehensible to coordinate (even a shoddy) DDoS leveraging your visitors as middlemen. This is effectively coordinating a botnet, and we shouldn't condone this behavior as a community.
P.S. Shout-out to dang for dropping the flags. I have a small suspicion that their may be some foul play, given the contents...
I don't think they're lashing out in self-defense. This is a harmless way for them to get attention, which is what they're desparate for because the FBI is after them at the behest of Bezos and other billionaires who control the paywalled media and don't like archive.today's role in making them accessible. The only thing that could possibly save them (though it almost certainly won't), is gathering as many eyeballs as possible from the people who like the service. HN having a super high concentration of those. Almost every paywalled post here has an archive.today link in the comments.
That's also why they posted about it on HN, explicitly under that name. To get HN eyeballs.
It's intentionally harmless because, as you confirmed, it's not costing you any money or resources.
JasonADrury•1d ago
It's a shame the DDoS isn't working.
OTOH, this all looks so silly it might as well be the archive.today operator trying to push fake dox on themselves.
Bender•1d ago
JasonADrury•1d ago
What gyrovague is doing here is obviously despicable.
Bender•1d ago
It's also not clear to me who is attacking who here.
JasonADrury•1d ago
Now the owner of archive.today is attempting a rather lazy DoS attack against gyrovague.com. A rather mild response to gyrovague attempting to bring the archive.today owner physical harm by spreading potentially identifying information about them.
There's really very little to be said about this whole thing besides that Gyrovague should try to be a less awful person in the future.
Bender•1d ago
JasonADrury•1d ago
> Archive.is has more money, resources and ASN's than Akamai
I assume this is a joke, but Archive.is is a shoestring operation funded through donations.
Bender•1d ago
I am certain they would like people to think that. They have more IPv4 addresses under more ASN's than Akamai control which anyone who has tried to block them would know. Their controlling ASN's are in the Russian Federation which they make no attempt to hide at least for now and why I must assume they are fine with people discussing it. The GDP of the Russian Federation is somewhere north of 2 trillion dollars. Their nodes both in Russia and spread all around the world would not be permitted by Russia to mirror random sites without authorization to do so. One in or from Russia would not defy Russian leadership for very long.
JasonADrury•1d ago
> Their nodes both in Russia and spread all around the world would not be permitted by Russia to mirror random sites without authorization to do so.
This is simply not true. You can absolutely run a website like this in Russia without any authorization. Who would you even ask? The whole idea is bizarre.
Bender•1d ago
dang•1h ago
deathanatos•1h ago
This statement makes me think you're misunderstanding the person above you.
They're saying this blog author, gyrovague, is doxing¹ Archive.is. I am wondering if you are misreading that as DoSing. To "dox" is to reveal the identity of, typically for purposes of harassment. To "DoS" is to spam with requests. Archive.is is not being spammed with requests, nor do I see anyone here suggesting they are except here: "resources and ASN's … mitigate anything anyone can throw at them" … that seems to indicate you're (mis)reading it as "DoS"?
(I.e., gyrovague is doxing the Archive.today owner¹. Archive.today is, in return, DoSing gyrovague.)
(¹I'm not trying to comment on whether that term is being appropriately applied here, or not.)