Comment by nailer
6 months ago
The linked blog contains a story about who funds archive today and they presumably don’t like being exposed.
6 months ago
The linked blog contains a story about who funds archive today and they presumably don’t like being exposed.
Thanks. I am so confused by this social drama, I feel like I am getting too old for this.
It’s truly weird and unhinged the extent to which two rando Internet People are willing to grief each other.
Parasocialweb 2.0 I suppose.
You mean just to keep their secrets hidden they hurt others?
Like most companies or state ?
As an individual, keeping their identity private is the only way to prevent oppression.
well that exposing is hurting more than 2 for sure
[flagged]
> The crucial context here is that archive.today provides a useful public service for free.
So public services should DDoS is your argument?
> Jani Patokallio runs gyrovague.net in order to harass people who provide useful public services.
I scrolled pretty far through the blog and didn't find anything of that sort. Just a bunch of travel stuff. Now I'm curious what sort of "harassment" you hallucinated in the sites that were previously targeted by archive.today's DDoS attacks.
[flagged]
Should providing a public service absolve all sins?
So far, the only sin archive.today has been accused of is retaliating against a guy attempting to dox them.
That's a pretty small sin in my book. To be written off as wildly unsuccessful but entirely justified self defense.
DDoSing gyrovague.com is silly, not evil.
The content on gyrovague.com which targets archive.today is evil, plain and simple.
29 replies →
I know it's petty. But don't act surprised when you find your garbage strewn all over your lawn next morning after you flipped off your neighbor the fourth time.
[flagged]
Besides the article about archive.today, which doesn't expose much, I see one about Clash of Clans, and a random crypto product. Those are not 'public services', not sure how you can put these in the same bundle?
Archive today being free doesn’t excuse them using their audience to DDoS someone they don’t like or excuse them from modifying archive content. Also documenting who funds a service is in the public interest.
>Also documenting who funds a service is in the public interest.
Not really, no. It's not unlikely to result in the service ceasing to exist.
> Jani Patokallio runs gyrovague.net in order to harass people who provide useful public services.
I mean...investigating who runs secretive yet popular websites is a useful public service, generally called "journalism". And your comments in this thread could be seen as an attempt to harass Jani.
I do not, to be clear, think you're doing anything morally wrong, but I'm also not sure I see how you can draw a bright line between your actions and Jani's. By the rather stretched logic and loose standards you've been using in these comments, it seems like you run your HN account to harass people who provide useful public services, no?
I don't think your logic stands up to the most basic analysis:
It's unarguably easy to demonstrate the public benefit generated by archive.today, we use the links here on HN to bypass paywalls every single day.
Please demonstrate any public benefit generated by gyrovagues blog post.