I clicked that link and I don't see anything wrong with that. It's not like I donate money by doing that. And they still are very useful resource, even if they're not good enough for Wikipedia (if they indeed tampered with some old archives, it's pretty obvious why)

▲

spicymaki 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Thank you for the heads up! DDOS attacks are pretty concerning, but even more concerning is the potential alteration of content. Diabolical. That said, journalism needs funding more than ever, please if you can, try your best to pay for it.

▲

rendaw 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why is it obvious why they tampered with old archives? Why did they tamper with old archives?

▲

cluckindan an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe not, but it could be using your browser as a part of a DDoS network. The admins have also been tampering with archived articles.

▲

chucksmash an hour ago | parent | next [-]

A DDoS against a blog that iirc was attempting to dox the archive.today maintainer.

The bit about tampering with archived pages is news to me though. Wish the wiki discussion included receipts. Is "two users report they were redirected to tehrantimes.com" what is being referred to when they say archived pages are being tampered with?

▲

arcfour an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not mine, UBlock has blocked that since day one, thankfully

▲

dyzone an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

DDoSing who? Doesn't CORS help here?

	▲	ceehex 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		cors stops the browser from reading the response but the request still gets processed by the server

▲

hsuduebc2 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

If you would open the second link provided you would get an answer.

>This decision was agreed on after a request for comment with more than 200 participants concluded in February 2026, and is due to multiple concerns, including the site using editors' and readers' computers to run a denial-of-service attack and evidence that the website has tampered with some archived pages