I presumed DDoS was used colloquially, but no, they literally added JS so every visitor made a request every 0.3 seconds to that blog server, in response to a blog article. Wholly malicious based on the reporting.

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

The claim is that archive.today is injecting malware into archived pages. Given some of the past behavior, this is not hard to believe.

And it is federated so when the biggest Lemmy instance starts to suck, Lemmy can be the Lemmy replacement, too.

I understand that mentioning it on popular subreddits is verboten.

https://lemmy.world/

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

https://archive.ph/HcOq2 (This is a link to the post for this article)

(If one’s ISP can’t access archive.today, I find that Firefox’s built in free VPN can usually access them)

Or, you can use on of the various Reddit scrapers, e.g:

https://redlib.catsarch.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xhf6qp/archi...

Here’s a list of Reddit scrapers:

https://github.com/redlib-org/redlib-instances/blob/main/ins...

Personally, as scummy as archive.today is at times, I can generally trust them to have an honest archive about, say, someone’s drunk post before said drunk deletes the post.

[in fact, I just tried btdig.com and it tried to redirect me to the same site: guillible-thanks.com or whatever]

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...

Unbelievable that the comment asking for evidence sits at -24 upvotes in that thread as of now. https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1xhf6qp/archivetod...

Because that's not what NYT says the price is. They say it's over $30 after the intro period.

Genuine question here.

It might be useful for your own memory since you can decide that you trust what was written. IE you trust that when it was written, you agreed at the time that it was an accurate summary, and later you only have to trust your earlier self.

But "My ai said that the site said ~essentially~ this on this date." is useless for anything else.

But it suggests an interesting idea. Maybe if we had some ai equivalent of trusted vetted accountable court reporters who write down notes and draw sketches in rooms where cameras aren't allowed.

That is purely second-hand reporting that we more or less trust, partly because there is usually more than one of them from competing venues reporting on the same event, partly because they are people with something to lose if they are unfaithful or even merely inept, partly because the facts are ultimately vettable with some effort for those who really need to.

There's no such ai yet. Even if one exists that could do the job, there is no consensus or basis for it, for everyone to recognize it as a trustworthy source of second hand reporting. But maybe if there were more than one and operated by different camps, they could grow to become recognized as a valid source of info.

https://ghostarchive.org/

they are not great people.

But, injecting malware to scuttle their own incredibly popular network would benefit them how?

(ofc this is a risk with the Wayback Machine, who also has a policy for honoring takedown request. But the Internet Archive's board and executives are known people with reputations)

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006#47100204

* https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...