|
| ▲ | Mogzol 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| All your comments are painting archive.today as an innocent victim in all this, but in addition to the DDoS, they have been caught modifying archived pages as well as sending actual threats to Patokallio [1] which in my opinion seem far worse than the "doxxing". Just the fact alone that they modified archived pages has completely ruined their credibility, and over what? A blog post about them that (a) wasn't even an attack, it is mostly praising archive.today, and (b) doesn't reveal any true identities or information that isn't already easily accessible. From my perspective at least, archive.today seems like the unhinged one, not Patokallio. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a... |
| |
| ▲ | walletdrainer 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ridiculous. Patokallio started with his completely unprovoked doxing of archive.today. Doxing someone is an implicit threat of violence, why else would you need their physical identity if not to reach out and touch them? Both parties here come across as unhinged, but one is clearly much worse than the other. |
|
|
| ▲ | gyrovague-com 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Jani here. What you describe as "doxxing" consisted of a) a whois lookup for archive.is and b) linking to a StackExchange post from 2020 called "Who owns archive.today" [1]. There is literally no new information about the site's owner in the post, all names have been dug up before and are clearly aliases, and the post states as much. [1] https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/145817/who-owns-... |
| |
| ▲ | thomassmith65 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If the site operator is working for the FSB, doxx away! Although the world needs a better alternative to Internet Archive, it shouldn't be an alternative that is an arm of an authoritarian government. | |
| ▲ | JasonADrury 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't see how this description changes the fundamental nature of your actions. Even a half-assed attempt at doxing is still an attempt at doxing. It'd be much easier to accept that you're acting in good faith had you deleted the post when it became obvious that the target doesn't appreciate it. You could still do that, and it would very simply be the right thing to do. | |
| ▲ | walletdrainer 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So you published an article trying to dox the operator of archive.today, but you were lazy about it? I fail to see how that’s supposed to be any better. | |
| ▲ | croes 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Isn’t doxxing most of the time just collecting data from multiple public sources and connect them? | | |
| ▲ | protimewaster 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe, but I don't think that distinction matters here. Surely you're not contending that it counts as doxing every time someone collects data from multiple public sources? I've always understood doxing to be PII, which aliases aren't, AFAIK, unless they're connected to a real person. And, to my knowledge, everyone is contending that the names in the blog post are all aliases. And, regarding aliases, I've never understood it to be doxing for someone to say "FakeNameX and FakeNameY appear to be the same user." So, to me, the thing that makes it not look like doxing is that it simply doesn't meet the basic definition of doxing. It provides no PII. | |
| ▲ | walletdrainer 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, that is exactly what “doxing” almost always refers to. It’s a very disingenuous response. |
| |
| ▲ | tomalbrc 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
| ▲ | KronisLV 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It's weird to see people getting fixated on the DDoS, which is obviously far less nasty than actually attempting to dox someone. Why even do that, then? Why not just make a public post of theirs like: "Hey, here's someone trying to doxx me, and here's the unfair and fictitious bullshit the lying government is trying to pin on me. Here's all the facts, decide for yourselves." Why do something as childish as DDoSing someone which takes away any basic good will and decency/respect you might have had in the eyes of many? That way, it'd also be way more clear whether attempts at censorship are motivated by them acting as a bad actor, or some sort of repression and censorship thing. I don't really have a horse in this race, but it sounds like lashing out to one own's detriment. |
|
| ▲ | dgxyz 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm wondering if Jani is possibly going to walk into the wrong party here and get burned. I did some public archival stuff about a decade ago and it was state sponsored and for the intelligence community. I'm not suggesting this is but it'll be very much of interest to competing intelligence services as it's an information control point. None of those are the sort of people you start pissing off by sticking your dick in it. FBI is likely just one of the actors here. |
| |
| ▲ | derefr 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You seem the right person to ask about this: why don’t we see any public web archivers operated by individuals or organizations based in countries that aren’t big fans of aiding or listening to American intelligence? | | |
| ▲ | dgxyz 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well they certainly do exist. However they tend not to even get noticed because the mindset and momentum behind everything is America-centric. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | rdevilla 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Perhaps Mr. Patokallio would like the same scrutiny applied to his own life now - it's only fair, and we have the technology. |
| |
| ▲ | rcakebread 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Read the archive.today blog, whoever is running archive.today already made many posts about Patokallio and his family members. |
|
