← Back to context

Comment by charcircuit

6 months ago

The site commits copyright infringement by showing you content it doesn't have the rights for. This is not the kind of site to go on about morals for.

>the site has a bad reputation

Not compared to archive.org. archive.is has a much better track record.

I'm not sure whether you're making a joke or confusing the two websites.

  • You’re just not at all familiar with the subject.

    Archive.org is awful. It allows site owners and random third parties to edit old archived pages.

    Archive.today does not.

    • Is it that much better that Archive.today reserves the right to edit old archived pages for the owner whenever they have a petty grudge with someone?

      At least site owners have the copyright on the pages that Archive.org saves. They can just get the content pulled through DMCA anyway.

      1 reply →

    • > You’re just not at all familiar with the subject.

      Not true

      >Archive.org is awful. It allows site owners and random third parties to edit old archived pages.

      Also not true. However, Archive.today edits archived pages itself.

      2 replies →

    • Folks keep saying this

      Do you actually mean edit or do you just mean delete

      Both are problematic, but falsifying a historic record is orders of magnitude worse than deleting one, and conflating them would be extremely dishonest

      1 reply →