| ▲ | JasonADrury 8 hours ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | 47282847 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| One side publishes words, the other DDoSes. One side could just ignore the other and go about their business, the other cannot. One is using force, which naturally leads to resistance and additional attention, the other is not. Both sides look like they have been bullied in the past and not found their way out of reproducing the pattern yet. |
| |
| ▲ | JasonADrury 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | SF, DS, KF all only publish words. Presidents use words to direct planes to drop bombs on schools full of little girls. It's deliberately obtuse to suggest that "words" aren't a big deal. >One is using force, which naturally leads to resistance and additional attention, the other is not. I'd say attempting to dox someone and then spreading that information is deploying far more significant force than a minor lazy DDoS attack. Doxing or attempting to dox someone is effectively threatening them with physical violence. A DDoS is nothing at all in comparison. | |
| ▲ | croes 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Words can have bad consequences.
We‘ll see what will happen to Banksy after Reuters published words. |
|
|
| ▲ | throwingcookies 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The blog is still online and only exists as a part of a harassment campaign targeting archive.today The blog has a lot of more posts on random topics. Why do you imply that the owner of the bloh is part of a harassment campaign and "only" that is the reason for this years old blog to exist? |
| |
| ▲ | JasonADrury 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because all the content in the past 4+ years is about archive.today? | | |
| ▲ | Mogzol 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Not true: https://gyrovague.com/2025/02/23/anatomy-of-a-boarding-pass-... There are only two posts about archive.today on the blog, and one of them only exists because archive.today started DDoSing them. I fail to see how you could consider the entire blog to be a "harassment campaign", especially considering that the original blog post isn't even negative, it ends with a compliment towards archive.today's creator. | |
| ▲ | winkelmann 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > all the content in the past 4+ years is about archive.today But it's not? This was published between the two posts about archive.today: https://gyrovague.com/2025/02/23/anatomy-of-a-boarding-pass-... | | |
| ▲ | JasonADrury 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Okay, there's one filler post I missed. I'm sure it took a lot of time to write the 16739382nd post explaining what the various things on a boarding pass mean. | | |
| ▲ | ahhhhnoooo 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | They have posted twice in four years. Once doing some digging into who runs archive today, and a second time to respond to a ddos attack. Writing about being ddos'd seems eminently reasonable. So if you elide that, you are talking about a single article in four years. It's genuinely nothing. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | jrflowers 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is a weird way of saying that you wish gyrovague updated more frequently. You could just say “Big fan of his writing, I’d love it if he posted more” if your only complaint is that there aren’t enough recent blog posts on that website | |
| ▲ | 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | longislandguido 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You think DDoS (which is illegal btw) is okay as long as you don't like the target? |
| |
| ▲ | JasonADrury 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I, like almost all people, firmly believe that dropping bombs on people is okay as long as I find the target sufficiently despicable. Why are you pretending to be surprised by this view that is held by approximately every single person in the world? Or do you think we should have different standards for DDoS and actual violence? | |
| ▲ | DaSHacka 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Considering the site itself is an illegal archive of websites, I think its obvious most of us don't treat what's 'legal' as a guide to whats 'moral'. | |
| ▲ | RobotToaster 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Harassment an doxing are both illegal. | | |
| ▲ | hrimfaxi 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Doxxing is illegal? I am against it but if it's republishing public info I don't think it can be illegal in the US unless there is an intent element. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | riedel 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| While I would it also better to a bit redact names and details mentioned in the original article in hindsight, I hardly find real defamation. I guess you want to provide random unproven evidence if someone is target of various foreign law enforcement and commercial sites.
In the article they even call for donations to archive.today . As far as I read the tone of the post is full of admiration. Funny thing is that IMHO the rather childish JavaScript attack gives credibility to the post after all.
In all this I somehow hope that we see a legal solution to all this major global copyright crisis that has been reinforced by LLM training. (If you want conspiracy theory: that I guess would be easy monetization for archive these days selling their snapshots) |
| |
| ▲ | JasonADrury 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Defamation? No. Doxing? Yes. It's clear that the person running archive.today does not actively publicize their identity. > As far as I read the tone of the post is full of admiration Exactly like an unhinged fan stalking a celebrity. | | |
| ▲ | riedel 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Totally agreed. Thanks for raising awareness. Thinking about it, I think we might need better platform rules, maybe even regulations on this. There seems to be pretty much no line of defense, which might explain the rather desperate DoS. If you take anonymity as a right, discussion like ours here on HN are dangerous as well, as they easily make otherwise difficult to find knowledge easily visible. So while a single fan page might go unnoticed, in case of doxing amplification is also a problem. Just my spontaneous thought. Edit: one afterthought. The story about hacking together a response to the GDPR takedown request quoting press rights and freedom of speech using an LLM shows actually the deeper problem. Actually rights come with obligations (at least ethical ones). At least in Europe press standards are typically rather aware of doxing risks. While actually celebraties also successfully use legal defenses, i still think the defenses for activist are weak balancing interest here (at least if you made something of public interest) |
|
|
