12ft? <looks around> Does anyone use that? Not around here, archive.today standard.

It's fast, nice. But trustworthy? There's so little indication that the content hasn't been tampered with or even when it was scraped.

▲

sincerely 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Isn’t archive.today notorious for doing exactly what you describe

▲

ChrisArchitect 4 hours ago | parent [-]

no? timestamped screenshots and basically reconstructed article page code from the site gives more credibility.

	▲	hoppyhoppy2 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		They have been caught altering snapshots, and that's why links to their snapshots are now banned from Wikipedia. >In the course of discussing whether Archive.today should be deprecated because of the DDoS, Wikipedia editors discovered that the archive site altered snapshots of webpages to insert the name of the blogger who was targeted by the DDoS. The alterations were apparently fueled by a grudge against the blogger over a post that described how the Archive.today maintainer hid their identity behind several aliases. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...
	▲	3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

ChrisArchitect 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sorry was basing that comment on a test case with an FT article, which it presented as just the text of. Does Wallhop act differently for different urls? A Verge article I just saw was presented as the full scraped html page. Different experience.