Unless they can find replacement which doesn’t remove archived pages on request like Wayback Machine does, it’s not really an option to block them. There are entire news sites blocked by Wayback Machine from being archived.
even chatgpt.com is not archivable, this is so stupid if we don’t have snapshot of webpages how can we cite anything and trust that later?
edit: added screenshot
This is hilarious haha
And turns out a lot of tech genius doing very important work for public good aren’t very well in the head, and that’s ok,I mean, wikipedia is all maintained by unpaid volunteers, and from the 184 million dollars they got from donations last year alone only about 2% were spent on running the service, and they can’t do what one guy on his garage does for free for the whole world and now they want to play the high horse? Fuck them.
The guy is being targeted by very big actors, they all reference a single blog, and check if the people associated with The Pirate Bay or Wikileaks had any good time when they were targeted by those actors… yeah, surprise surprise the guy is big antisocial and acted antisocial, giving a 404 to the media links wouldn’t change what is already out there, and using his resources to target the blog bandwidth to try to force it offline after having his requests denied was… questionable… Streisand effect blah blah blah, but didn’t hurt the users, and apparently not even the blog, I think the choice is very clear: Siding with one guy that has been doing fantastic preservation work for the whole world for free for more than a decade VS Siding with random blogger that tried to uncover his identity and, after having his article used to harass the guy, still decided to not take it down temporarily.
Oh, the antisocial weirdo said some childish and questionable shit, time to cancel him! Don’t worry, some perfect beacon of morality PR posterboy approved by the HR sensibility training will show up to pick up the work… not.
Nothing against you, but especially the last paragraph reads like the stuff I remember being said about a certain richest man in the world back then.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, though. Being targeted by big actors doesn’t mean you should try to DDoS someone else. And the Archive.is maintainer also has a little history with spamming Wikipedia with links to his site, so it’s not as if the decision materialized out of thin air.
Some additional reading from Gyrovague, the victim of the DDoS, and other interesting context.
When asked by a commenter,
do we want archive.today taken down over this? Who would lose and who would benefit the most from this takedown?
Gyrovague responded:
As for outcomes, I’m very much a bit player/spectator in this drama, nobody’s going to be “taking them down” over DDOSing an obscure nerd blog.
If they do go down, it’ll be the FBI or equivalent, and it will be publicly justified as some combination of “protecting the children” (cf. WAAD) and/or copyright violations.
I don’t even see wrongs, just one being childish and the other petty… but hey, if Archive guy decides to burn down his Library of Alexandria I believe we fully deserve losing all that information forever.
uBlock Origin already fixed that https://lemmy.zip/post/57524806/24557587
