← Back to context

Comment by nobody9999

4 days ago

>> an analysis of existing links has shown that most of its uses can be replaced.

>Oh? Do tell!

They do. In the very next paragraph in fact:

   The guidance says editors can remove Archive.today links when the original 
   source is still online and has identical content; replace the archive link so 
   it points to a different archive site, like the Internet Archive, 
   Ghostarchive, or Megalodon; or “change the original source to something that 
   doesn’t need an archive (e.g., a source that was printed on paper)

8 comments

nobody9999

Reply
chrisjj  4 days ago

[flagged]

  • Kim_Bruning  4 days ago

    > archive.today

    Hopeless. Caught tampering the archive.

    The whole situation is not great.

    • rockskon  1 day ago

      Did they? I thought the claim was code was added unrelated to the contents of the archived pages that effectuated a DDOS on someone's blog.

    • snigsnog  3 days ago

      I'd rather deal with this weird feud than not have access to any archived content that people want censored. Defeats the entire purpose of an archive