It's not just problematic content, it's criminal behavior. And the site has a bad reputation for archival, given that the owner altered the content of archived articles.

▲

JasonADrury 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>It's not just problematic content, it's criminal behavior.

How is that supposed to be a big deal when the one of core services archive.today provides is obviously illegal anyway?

▲

InsideOutSanta 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure how illegal copyright violations really are, given that all major tech companies are doing it. DDoS attacks, on the other hand, are pretty clear-cut.

I also think "but they also do that other crime" doesn't help their case.

	▲	JasonADrury 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think the DDoS is clearly problematic, I just don't think it's problematic because it's criminal. It's problematic because it's childish and pointlessly degrades the user experience.

▲

charcircuit 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The site commits copyright infringement by showing you content it doesn't have the rights for. This is not the kind of site to go on about morals for.

>the site has a bad reputation

Not compared to archive.org. archive.is has a much better track record.

▲

InsideOutSanta 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure whether you're making a joke or confusing the two websites.

▲

walletdrainer 4 hours ago | parent [-]

You’re just not at all familiar with the subject.

Archive.org is awful. It allows site owners and random third parties to edit old archived pages.

Archive.today does not.

	▲	Hamuko 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Is it that much better that Archive.today reserves the right to edit old archived pages for the owner whenever they have a petty grudge with someone? At least site owners have the copyright on the pages that Archive.org saves. They can just get the content pulled through DMCA anyway.