← Back to context

Comment by Ukv

4 hours ago

Seems unlikely to be the case here if what one of the mods said is true:

> We verified this isn't just us or just this source (it's a link in a NYT article to a PDF anyway, about the most safe combo I can think of)

Might be able to find the article in question by looking for NYT links posted to the subreddit recently (if the presumably-deleted archive link was posted separately as a reply).

3 comments

Ukv

Reply
avidruntime  3 hours ago

Perhaps, but it could also just be "take our word for it" devolving into more "take our extended word for it". Being prepared to make an alarming enough claim that it sparks discussion outside of the sub but being unwilling to provide evidence remains suspicious.

That suspicion becomes more grounded when the conversation with the subreddits mod regarding why the claim was made without a willingness to provide evidence looks like this:

>If you're going to make an allegation like this, it's necessary to be specific. Specifically, what is the malware, and what is the evidence that it was "injected"? This is "consult a security researcher" and "speak to the media" territory, not "mod announcement" territory.

>>No it's not. These archive sites are a legal gray area anyway. We don't have to consult anyone to decide not to allow the links. No we are not talking to the media, we're not providing research, or a proof. I'm not calling the mayor. We are reddit mods . This is purely about community management.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xhf6qp/archivetod...