Comment by progval
6 hours ago
> to DDOS sites the owner doesn't agree with
to DDOS one website, which is doxxing the owner. Not that it makes it good idea, but it's a little more understandable.
6 hours ago
> to DDOS sites the owner doesn't agree with
to DDOS one website, which is doxxing the owner. Not that it makes it good idea, but it's a little more understandable.
DDoSing a website, modifying their archives surreptitiously to serve their own wants (which was what tipped Wikipedia towards banning their use), running weird sockpuppet campaigns to build dependence on them, and fucking with Cloudflare's DNS resolution to prevent anti-tracking measures from working.
Oh and even if I wanted to ignore all of this, I couldn't use them anyways because they blackholed the majority of Finnish IP ranges after the DDoS incident to I guess punish the entire country for the targeted blogger being born here.
archive.today has been targeted by Western institutions, like the FBI, for over a year now. Which signals to me they are the good guys.
All that tells us is that the site is probably not run by the FBI. It could still be run by the CIA, Russian intelligence, or some lone morally neutral guy from Prague
2 replies →
Come on. It's not WikiLeaks. If they were targeted by FBI it would be down.
2 replies →
I'm not well-informed about this situation, but DDOSing does strike me as an action which is fundamentally counter to information freedom and archival, so that seems like a reasonable suspicion to me.
I would add it was also completely ineffective since the site in question was hosted on wordpress.com, which is about as likely to work as ddosing Google.