> … a blog post from 2023, where the researcher looked into what makes Archive Today tick.

> The exposé reads as mostly positive, even suggesting that folks donate to Archive Today, as it provides a valuable service to the online community. Among the post's contents, Patokallio shows relatively slim and unverified findings about the Archive's operator's (or operators') identities and their income sources.

Is your argument that it's legitimate to intentionally cause user's PCs to conduct a malicious DDoS against someone who has possibly revealed who is operating a service and/or committing crimes? If someone posted that OpenAI had committed a crime or revealed its backers, would it be defensible for OpenAI to insert code for every ChatGPT.com visitor to make requests to that user's site every 0.3 seconds?

Or do you not think the archive.today operator's existing actions are defensible?