they are not great people.
(ofc this is a risk with the Wayback Machine, who also has a policy for honoring takedown request. But the Internet Archive's board and executives are known people with reputations)
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006#47100204
* https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...
Unbelievable that the comment asking for evidence sits at -24 upvotes in that thread as of now. https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xhf6qp/archivetod...
> We verified this isn't just us or just this source (it's a link in a NYT article to a PDF anyway, about the most safe combo I can think of)
Might be able to find the article in question by looking for NYT links posted to the subreddit recently.
consumer451•2h ago
Link to comment explaining the discovery:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xhf6qp/archivetod...
edit: Maybe I should have titled this "claim to have discovered" as there is no external verification, and no write up. I thought I should post this in any case.
mahboi•1h ago
I'm confused though, it says the site injected malware into its archived form. But the HN title says archive.today injected the malware.
dpark•1h ago
The claim is that archive.today is injecting malware into archived pages. Given some of the past behavior, this is not hard to believe.
LoganDark•1h ago
mahboi•1h ago
Idk, maybe this is just a typo, but grammatically this is saying the article injected the links.
k00shball•5m ago
(To be fair, that isn't the only redirect so you might need to click it a few times.)
arprocter•1h ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickFix
abeyer•53m ago
vadansky•43m ago
shagie•40m ago
Archive.today is directing a DDoS attack against my blog https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46843805 (8 months ago, 366 points, 178 comments)
Ask HN: Weird archive.today behavior? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624740 (9 months ago, 140 points, 71 comments)
grimgrin•36m ago
Akronymus•20m ago
consumer451•17m ago