No they don't. Archive.org is co-operative, it respects robots.txt and allows deletion. It's also very slow. Archive.* is adversarial and archives sites that don't like it. That's why the FBI is trying to take it down.
Given that the root of the discussion is about Internet Archive being hit with huge traffic and not the functionalities provided by Wayback Machine, it very much is a distinction with a difference.
Internet Archive's traffic may not matter to you, but that's the main topic of this discussion, regardless of what you care or use website archival tools for.
They are 2 different services, run by different people, one goes out of their way to bypass paywalls while the other doesn't, one is banned by Wikipedia and the other isn't, etc.
I think it's a distinction worth making.
Not to mention that the Wayback Machine itself isn't exactly a good tool to bypass paywalls as most paid sites don't let them archive paywalled content anyway.
Yeah, you're mistaken. One archives web pages, the other maintains a list of paid-access accounts and fetches information from behind paywalls as a service.
archive.org is the more straight-laced archive that doesn't circumvent sites that try to block it, and removes content they deem 'problematic' even if not illegal or requested by the site owner.
Meanwhile archive.today/ph/is/etc is the guerrilla alternative run by a die-hard datahoarder that seeks to archive the information itself, bypassing whatever blockers/login pages/whathaveyou to achieve the result.
It's nice to have both options. When I archive a site, I usually use both for added resiliency.
No they don't. Archive.org is co-operative, it respects robots.txt and allows deletion. It's also very slow. Archive.* is adversarial and archives sites that don't like it. That's why the FBI is trying to take it down.
Given that the root of the discussion is about Internet Archive being hit with huge traffic and not the functionalities provided by Wayback Machine, it very much is a distinction with a difference.
Bot traffic or human traffic doesn't matter. The goal is to read websites without having your own access.
So Internet Archive, Archive.today, Archive.ph, etc. are all just means to the same end.
I suspect you may be conflating two different things.
Archive.org exists to preserve historical snapshots of the public parts of websites, and not to bypass subscriptions or pay walls.
Internet Archive's traffic may not matter to you, but that's the main topic of this discussion, regardless of what you care or use website archival tools for.
I think you have the wrong impression of the Internet Archive.
The internet archive is not designed to circumvent anything. It is not designed to "grant access without having your own access".
They are 2 different services, run by different people, one goes out of their way to bypass paywalls while the other doesn't, one is banned by Wikipedia and the other isn't, etc.
I think it's a distinction worth making.
Not to mention that the Wayback Machine itself isn't exactly a good tool to bypass paywalls as most paid sites don't let them archive paywalled content anyway.
Yeah, you're mistaken. One archives web pages, the other maintains a list of paid-access accounts and fetches information from behind paywalls as a service.
Exactly this
archive.org is the more straight-laced archive that doesn't circumvent sites that try to block it, and removes content they deem 'problematic' even if not illegal or requested by the site owner.
Meanwhile archive.today/ph/is/etc is the guerrilla alternative run by a die-hard datahoarder that seeks to archive the information itself, bypassing whatever blockers/login pages/whathaveyou to achieve the result.
It's nice to have both options. When I archive a site, I usually use both for added resiliency.