Weren't they also caught modifying their "archived" content?

danso a day ago | parent | next [-]

That's been my nagging fear about them too. Obviously it's not an option they'd want to exercise frequently, but it could be devastating to individual targets.

(ofc this is a risk with the Wayback Machine, who also has a policy for honoring takedown request. But the Internet Archive's board and executives are known people with reputations)

▲

throw0101c a day ago | parent | prev [-]

On modifying bits, see perhaps this comment from a discussion ~8 months ago:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006#47100204

* https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...

▲

mahboi a day ago | parent [-]

Hm, someone in the first thread mentioned a Reddit cofounder did something like this too

	▲	iamnothere a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, and archiving as a practice became popular when people noticed that media sites were beginning to edit or delete articles without listing a correction, sometimes after the story had already circulated widely. Previously, editors would usually make a note of such things. (This is why archives that bypass paywalls are particularly important. I wish we had more options here.)