> to DDOS sites the owner doesn't agree with

to DDOS one website, which is doxxing the owner. Not that it makes it good idea, but it's a little more understandable.

DDoSing a website, modifying their archives surreptitiously to serve their own wants (which was what tipped Wikipedia towards banning their use), running weird sockpuppet campaigns to build dependence on them, and fucking with Cloudflare's DNS resolution to prevent anti-tracking measures from working.

Oh and even if I wanted to ignore all of this, I couldn't use them anyways because they blackholed the majority of Finnish IP ranges after the DDoS incident to I guess punish the entire country for the targeted blogger being born here.

▲

dakolli an hour ago | parent [-]

archive.today has been targeted by Western institutions, like the FBI, for over a year now. Which signals to me they are the good guys.

▲

SXX 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

Come on. It's not WikiLeaks. If they were targeted by FBI it would be down.

	▲	dakolli 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What do you mean, I didnt make it up... Its detailed on the archive.today wikipedia page. The media barrons in the west have bribed the US government to pursue archive criminally on their behalf for helping people bypass paywalls. https://www.theverge.com/news/815691/fbi-subpoena-archive-is...

▲

radicalcentrist an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not well-informed about this situation, but DDOSing does strike me as an action which is fundamentally counter to information freedom and archival, so that seems like a reasonable suspicion to me.