It is malicious towards the guy who tried to dox person behind archive.today. By altering content you mean that archive.today is trolling that guy by deadnaming him. I’ll keep on using this site because it provides valuable service, unlike the guy that I’m inadvertently DDoSing. You’re defending an asshole just because he’s transgender.
I’m okay with ddosing someone’s blog because they wanted to dox someone providing great service. Sometimes you need to stand up for yourself and show you’re going to fight back.
I’ve just described entire extent of that content altering so you can stop pretending now it’s anything more than that. As to capability to alter content, that existed always.
That service is providing archived copies of websites, often paywalled, which is quite valuable given that free news aren’t worth much these days. Not that FT or Bloomberg don’t have agenda but their target is different and they’re still adhering to some journalistic standards.
archive ph is a malicious site that alters content and turns users into ddos nodes.
You’re thinking of archive.today
.ph is a mirror / alt domain of .today
It is malicious towards the guy who tried to dox person behind archive.today. By altering content you mean that archive.today is trolling that guy by deadnaming him. I’ll keep on using this site because it provides valuable service, unlike the guy that I’m inadvertently DDoSing. You’re defending an asshole just because he’s transgender.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, and you are liable for your computer being used to attack others.
This is so off topic; take it elsewhere
Yes, police are coming for everyone with an infected router any time now.
Not what I said.
It’s like littering. You’re responsible for your actions.
I’m okay with ddosing someone’s blog because they wanted to dox someone providing great service. Sometimes you need to stand up for yourself and show you’re going to fight back.
So it is malicious, and it’s not an archive as it alters content. So what service is it providing then?
I’ve just described entire extent of that content altering so you can stop pretending now it’s anything more than that. As to capability to alter content, that existed always.
That service is providing archived copies of websites, often paywalled, which is quite valuable given that free news aren’t worth much these days. Not that FT or Bloomberg don’t have agenda but their target is different and they’re still adhering to some journalistic standards.