7 ms·

Rather than telling us that it is telling, perhaps you should tell us what it tells you and why?

cactusplant7374 8d ago
It tells us that the moderators of HN support copyright infringement and DDOS attacks. They are actively moderating this forum and choosing to do nothing.
- dcminter 8d ago
  They also choose to do nothing about uncharitable interpretations of their inactions. Should they act there too? Or do you prefer the hands-off approach when it suits you?
  - cactusplant7374 8d ago
    I can't control their behavior nor can you. But if you don't want to respond to the substance of my comment then perhaps you shouldn't respond?
    - dcminter 8d ago
      I don't think it's very interesting even if true. I'm not that fussed about copyright infringement myself and I don't consider using archive.is (infrequently) to be condoning their DDOS. Presumably you are and do. We differ.
      - cactusplant7374 8d ago
        This isn't about you personally. There is a public interest here.
pessimizer 8d ago
Better to just ignore the anti-Russian and hasbara spam. It's being posted opportunistically. The chance to attack archive.is in an organically posted thread is probably the only reason an intermittent outage (common) of archive.is was upvoted enough to make it to the front page. Look at the top comment.
- Plont 8d ago
  Why does it feel like everyone has just ignored/memory-holed this? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-archive-today-after-site-executed-ddos-and-altered-web-captures/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a... That whole debacle is even specifically relevant to this thread because the operator of archive.today (aka archive.is) was caught using a script on its captcha page to make visitors' browsers connect to the blog they were mad at. That's how their DDOS attack worked. They used their own visitors, who naturally trusted the captcha page, to commit a crime. For whatever reason, with the exception of Wikipedia (bless the editors), they seem to have gotten away with this, as well as with deliberately falsifying the content of "archived" pages (as described in the arstechnica article), without consequences. So, call me crazy or a Russian bot if you want, but I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of any weird captcha behavior from this website in particular.
  - cactusplant7374 8d ago
    And HN users are being used as part of these attacks?

It tells us that the moderators of HN support copyright infringement and DDOS attacks. They are actively moderating this forum and choosing to do nothing.

dcminter 8d ago
They also choose to do nothing about uncharitable interpretations of their inactions. Should they act there too? Or do you prefer the hands-off approach when it suits you?
- cactusplant7374 8d ago
  I can't control their behavior nor can you. But if you don't want to respond to the substance of my comment then perhaps you shouldn't respond?
  - dcminter 8d ago
    I don't think it's very interesting even if true. I'm not that fussed about copyright infringement myself and I don't consider using archive.is (infrequently) to be condoning their DDOS. Presumably you are and do. We differ.
    - cactusplant7374 8d ago
      This isn't about you personally. There is a public interest here.

pessimizer 8d ago

Better to just ignore the anti-Russian and hasbara spam. It's being posted opportunistically. The chance to attack archive.is in an organically posted thread is probably the only reason an intermittent outage (common) of archive.is was upvoted enough to make it to the front page. Look at the top comment.

Plont 8d ago
Why does it feel like everyone has just ignored/memory-holed this? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-archive-today-after-site-executed-ddos-and-altered-web-captures/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a... That whole debacle is even specifically relevant to this thread because the operator of archive.today (aka archive.is) was caught using a script on its captcha page to make visitors' browsers connect to the blog they were mad at. That's how their DDOS attack worked. They used their own visitors, who naturally trusted the captcha page, to commit a crime. For whatever reason, with the exception of Wikipedia (bless the editors), they seem to have gotten away with this, as well as with deliberately falsifying the content of "archived" pages (as described in the arstechnica article), without consequences. So, call me crazy or a Russian bot if you want, but I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of any weird captcha behavior from this website in particular.
- cactusplant7374 8d ago
  And HN users are being used as part of these attacks?