• @ThekingoflordaA
    link
    English
    2102 months ago

    I can’t think of any reason to attack that website, what have they done wrong?

    • Blaster M
      link
      English
      1772 months ago

      Archived something someone doesn’t want to be seen by the world… like any and all since-removed misinformation for one…

      • sunzu2
        link
        fedilink
        392 months ago

        tinfoil would suggested the media industry but this seems a bit more “personal”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          322 months ago

          It’s likely to just be some randos doing it for the lulz and IA was vulnerable for whatever reason. Book publishers have sadly been enjoying plenty of success in court against IA. They don’t need to get their hands dirty.

    • @GrymEdm
      link
      English
      168
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I have zero proof of this so take it for the musing it is, but the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine can be used to view articles that have been taken offline (sometimes for political reasons). The IA is a very accessible way to prove that once something is on the Internet, it’s out there forever. I used it in a recent post to show an Israeli newspaper article that argued Israel had a right to not just Palestine, but Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and other territories. It was taken off the newspaper’s website a few days later, but IA had it.

      This may explain why no one is taking credit, and there are no demands. Or it could very well be another reason, including people just being assholes.

      • @nutsack
        link
        English
        12 months ago

        so if this is the case then it could be a foreign government

    • Toes♀
      link
      fedilink
      English
      882 months ago

      Yeah, this is a bit like vandalizing a library. They are providing a valuable public service, leave them alone.

      • @GrymEdm
        link
        English
        362 months ago

        Yeah, and what kind of psychos would want to restrict public access to books in libraries?!?! I’m not on the conspiracy train until there’s proof and I agree with your post. Just saw a bit of irony there since a lot of North Americans are currently in the process of dismantling libraries.

    • @ZagamTheVile
      link
      English
      302 months ago

      It’s probably for the lulz I guess. There’s only a few places left on the internet that are decent and good, archive being one, so why not shit all over it? People are so dumb.

    • @linearchaos
      link
      English
      192 months ago

      There’s currently a fuck ton of hacking going on everywhere maybe just prior to the US elections maybe something unrelated but there’s definitely a concerted effort to turn the internet on its head.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      112 months ago

      In this case it’s looking like people trying to showcase their skill and possibly get bragging rights or at least a reputation for doing these attacks which they can use to earn money from others for these types of services.

    • @small44
      link
      English
      72 months ago

      We just need to accept that there’s terrible people in this world

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 months ago

      We see this and think of an amazing and essential public service. A capitalist sees this and tries to find a way to make money with it, and the first step is to ruin the free product.

    • @Jordan117
      link
      English
      12 months ago

      Dipshits thought it was affiliated with the US government and attacked it to “avenge” Gaza.

    • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80
      link
      English
      -712 months ago

      I just sent a DMCA takedown last week to remove my site. They’ve claimed to follow meta tags and robots.txt since 1998, but no, they had over 1,000,000 of my pages going back that far. They even had the robots.txt configured for them archived from 1998.

      I’m tired of people linking to archived versions of things that I worked hard to create. Sites like Wikipedia were archiving urls and then linking to the archive, effectively removing branding and blocking user engagement.

      Not to mention that I’m losing advertising revenue if someone views the site in an archive. I have fewer problems with archiving if the original site is gone, but to mirror and republish active content with no supported way to prevent it short of legal action is ridiculous. Not to mention that I lose control over what’s done with that content – are they going to let Google train AI on it with their new partnership?

      I’m not a fan. They could easily allow people to block archiving, but they choose not to. They offer a way to circumvent artist or owner control, and I’m surprised that they still exist.

      So… That’s what I think is wrong with them.

      From a security perspective it’s terrible that they were breached. But it is kind of ironic – maybe they can think of it as an archive of their passwords or something.

      • @Duamerthrax
        link
        English
        482 months ago

        Not to mention that I’m losing advertising revenue if someone views the site in an archive.

        No one is using Internet Archive to bypass ads. Anyone who would think of doing that already has ad blockers on.

        • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80
          link
          English
          -122 months ago

          You misunderstood. If they view the site at Internet Archive, our site loses on the opportunity for ad revenue.

          • @Duamerthrax
            link
            English
            162 months ago

            I completely understood. No one is going to IA as their first stop. They’re only going there if they want to see a history change or if the original site is gone.

            • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80
              link
              English
              -32 months ago

              Yes, some wikipedia editors are submitting the pages to archive.org and then linking to that instead of to the actual source.

              So when you go to the Wikipedia page it takes you straight to archive.org – that is their first stop.

              • @ikidd
                link
                English
                92 months ago

                Because if you’re referencing something specific, why would you take the chance that someone changes that page? Are you going to monitor that from then on and make sure it’s still correct/relevant? No, you take what is effectively a screenshot and link to that.

                You aren’t really thinking about this from any standpoint except your advertising revenue.

                • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80
                  link
                  English
                  -62 months ago

                  I’m thinking about it from the perspective of an artist or creator under existing copyright law. You can’t just take someone’s work and republish it.

                  It’s not allowed with books, it’s not allowed with music, and it’s not even allowed with public sculpture. If a sculpture shows up in a movie scene, they need the artist’s permission and may have to pay a licensing fee.

                  Why should the creation of text on the internet have lesser protections?

                  But copyright law is deeply rooted in damages, and if advertising revenue is lost that’s a very real example.

                  And I have recourse; I used it. I used current law (DMCA) to remove over 1,000,000 pages because it was my legal right to remove infringing content. If it had been legal, they wouldn’t have had to remove it.

                  • @ikidd
                    link
                    English
                    22 months ago

                    This conversation makes me want to throw up, as most discussions that revolve around the DMCA usually do. Using rights under the DMCA doesn’t put you in very good company.

                  • @ricdeh
                    link
                    English
                    12 months ago

                    It’s not allowed with books

                    Have you ever heard of the mysterious places called “libraries”? IA does not “republish” anything, it is an archive.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Wah wah wah, my stuff’s been preserved and I dont like it.

        Not to mention that I lose control over what’s done with that content – are they going to let Google train AI on it with their new partnership?

        Lmao you think Google needs to go through Archive to scrape your site? Delusional.

        Not to mention that I’m losing advertising revenue if someone views the site in an archive.

        The mechanisms used to serve ads over the internet nowadays are nasty in a privacy sense, and a psychological manipulation sense. And you want people to be affected by them just to line your pockets? Are you also opposed to ad blockers by any chance?

        I have fewer problems with archiving if the original site is gone, but to mirror and republish active content with no supported way to prevent it short of legal action is ridiculous.

        And how do you suggest a site which has been wiped off the face of the internet gets archived? Maybe we need to invest in a time machine for the Internet Archive?

        Sites like Wikipedia were archiving urls and then linking to the archive, effectively removing branding and blocking user engagement.

        What do you mean by “engagement”, exactly? Clicking on ads?

        • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80
          link
          English
          -4
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          What do you mean by “engagement”, exactly? Clicking on ads?

          In SEO terms user engagement refers to how people interact with the website. Do they click on another link? Does a new blog posting interest them?

          Lmao you think Google needs to go through Archive to scrape your site? Delusional.

          Any activiity from Google is easier to track and I have a record if who downloaded content if it’s coming from my servers.

          The mechanisms used to serve ads over the internet nowadays are nasty in a privacy sense, and a psychological manipulation sense. And you want people to be affected by them just to line your pockets? Are you also opposed to ad blockers by any chance?

          I agree that many sites use advertising in a different way. I use it in the older internet sense – someone contacts me to sponsor a page or portion of the site, and that page gets a single banner, created in-house, with no tracking. I’ve been using the internet for 36 years. I’m well aware of many uses that I view as unethical, and I take great pains not to replicate them on my own site.

          I disapprove of ad blockers. I approve of things that block tracking.

          As far as “lining my own pockets” goes, I want to recoup my hosting costs. I spend hours researching for each article/showcase, make the content free to view, and then I’m expected to pay to share it with anyone who’s interested? I have a day job. This is my hobby, but it’s also my blood, sweat, and tears.

          And how do you suggest a site which has been wiped off the face of the internet gets archived? Maybe we need to invest in a time machine for the Internet Archive?

          archive.org could archive the content and only publish it if the page has been dark for a certain amount of time.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            6
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            archive.org could archive the content and only publish it if the page has been dark for a certain amount of time.

            It’s user-driven. Nothing would get archived in this case. And what if the content changes but the page remains up? What then? Fairly sure this is why Wikipedia uses archives.

            I agree that many sites use advertising in a different way. I use it in the older internet sense – someone contacts me to sponsor a page or portion of the site, and that page gets a single banner, created in-house, with no tracking. I’ve been using the internet for 36 years. I’m well aware of many uses that I view as unethical, and I take great pains not to replicate them on my own site.

            Pretty sure mainstream ad blockers won’t block a custom in-house banner. And if it has no tracking, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s on Archive or not, you’re getting paid the same, no?

            Pr

            • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80
              link
              English
              02 months ago

              It’s user-driven. Nothing would get archived in this case. And what if the content changes but the page remains up? What then? Fairly sure this is why Wikipedia uses archives.

              That’s a good point.

              Pretty sure mainstream ad blockers won’t block a custom in-house banner. And if it has no tracking, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s on Archive or not, you’re getting paid the same, no?

              Some of them do block those kinds of ads – I’ve tried it out with a few. If it’s at archive.org I lose the ability to report back to the sponsor that their ad was viewed ‘n’ times (unless, ironically, if I put a tracker in). It also means that if sponsorship changes, the main drivers of traffic like Wikipedia may not see that. It makes getting new sponsors more difficult because they want something timely for seasonal ads. Imagine sponsoring a page, but Wikipedia only links to the archived one. Your ad for gardening tools isn’t reflected by one of the larger drivers of traffic until December, and nobody wants to buy gardening tools in December.

              Yes, I could submit pages to archive.org as sponsorship changes if this model continues.

              It was a much bigger deal when we used Google ads a decade ago, but we stopped in early 2018 because tracking was getting out of hand.

              If I was submitting pages myself I’d be all for it because I could control when it happened. But there have times when I’ve edited a page and totally screwed it up, and archive.org just happened to grab it at that moment when the formatting was all weird or the wrong picture was loaded. I usually fix the page and forget about it until I see it on archive.org later.

              I asked for pages like that to be removed, but archive.org was unresponsive until I used a DMCA takedown notice.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            42 months ago

            SEO killed the internet. You’re literally part of the reason why people go look for alternatives to viewing your website, no one wants ads.

            • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80
              link
              English
              -12 months ago

              I don’t think you know what SEO is. I think you know what bad SEO is.

              Anyhow, Wikipedia is always free to link somewhere else if they can find better content.

          • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ
            link
            English
            382 months ago

            Did you just draw comparison between redistribution of publicly available content and…rape? Dang.

            • @theherk
              link
              English
              92 months ago

              Hey, if they choose to wrap their comments in completely inane reasoning they should be allowed to.

              • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ
                link
                English
                32 months ago

                I 100% agree with you. I’m also allowed to call them out on their bullshit haha

            • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80
              link
              English
              -62 months ago

              Someone asked a question and I answered honestly. I’m sorry that you can’t understand my perspective.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            6
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Meaning, your content changes often?

            I only try to understand why you seem to be especiallly affected.

      • Red Army Dog Cooper
        link
        fedilink
        English
        172 months ago

        how do you expect an archive to happen if they are not allowed to archive while it is still up. How are you suposed to track changed or see how the world has shifted. This is a very narrow and in my opinion selfish way to view the world

        • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80
          link
          English
          -22 months ago

          how do you expect an archive to happen if they are not allowed to archive while it is still up.

          I don’t want them publishing their archive while it’s up. If they archive but don’t republish while the site exists then there’s less damage.

          I support the concept of archiving and screenshotting. I have my own linkwarden server set up and I use it all the time.

          But I don’t republish anything that I archive because that dilutes the value of the original creator.

            • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80
              link
              English
              -42 months ago

              Shouldn’t that be the content creator’s prerogative? What if the content had a significant error? What if they removed the page because of a request from someone living in the EU requested it under their laws? What if the page was edited because someone accidentally made their address and phone number public in a forum post?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                32 months ago

                Nah. It just lets slimy gits claim they never said XYZ, or that such and such a thing never happened. With as volatile a storage media as internet media, hard backups are absolutely necessary. Put it this way; would you have the same complaimt about a newspaper? A TV show? Post your opinion piece to a newspaper and it’s fixed in ink forever. Yet somehow you complain when that same opinion piece is on a website? Get outta here.

                • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80
                  link
                  English
                  02 months ago

                  Like I said, I have no problems with individuals archiving it and not republishing it.

                  If I take a newspaper article and republish it on my site I guarantee you I will get a takedown notice. That will be especially true if I start linking to my copy as the canonical source from places like Wikipedia.

                  It’s a fine line. Is archive.org a library (wasn’t there a court case about this recently…) or are they republishing?

                  Either way, it doesn’t matter for me any more. The pages are gone from the archive, and they won’t archive any more.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 months ago

            A couple of good examples are lifehacker.com and lifehack.org. Both sites used to have excellent content. The sites are still up and running, but the first one has turned into a collection of listicles and the second is an ad for an “AI-powered life coach”. All of that old content is gone and is only accessible through the Internet Archive.

            In fact, many domains never shut down, they just change owners or change direction.

            • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80
              link
              English
              0
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Again, isn’t that the site’s prerogative?

              I think there should at least be a recognized way to opt-out that archive.org actually follows. For years they told people to put

              User-agent: ia_archiver
              Disallow:
              

              in robots.txt, but they still archived content from those sites. They refuse to publish what IP addresses they pull content down from, but that would be a trivial thing to do. They refuse to use a UserAgent that you can filter on.

              If you want to be a library, be open and honest about it. There’s no need to sneak around.

      • @jqubed
        link
        English
        72 months ago

        About the only thing I can agree with you on here is I don’t like when people on Wikipedia archive a link and then list that as the primary source in the reference instead of the original link. Wikipedia (at least in English) has a proper method to follow for citations with links and the archived version should only become the primary if the original source is dead or has changed and no longer covers the reference.

        They should also honor a DMCA takedown and robots.txt, but at least with the DMCA I’m sure there’s a backlog. Personally I’ve always appreciated the archive’s existence, though, and would think their impact is small enough that it’s better to have them than block them.