Avid PC gamer, Linux convert, SCP fan.

Love Science Fiction, Cyberpunk, post-apocalyptic settings; Fan of the games of the defunct Arkane Studios. Listening to (Power-, Speed-, Thrash-)Metal, Gothic, Deathrock, EBM, Vaporwave, Lo-Fi; Classic and Musicals are fine too. Can’t stand Hip-Hop.

Owned by two cats, recently divorced, blessed with a personality disorder (AVPD) - pensioned (even the state has the opinion I’m a total wreck lol). This causes me to be unable to keep up personal connections and makes me ghost literally everyone, so if it happens to you, sorry in advance.

Chronically online.

Pro GenAI, but Anti-GenAI-Corpos; this technology should be available to everyone, which would only be fair since we all contributed to it. Datasets and Models should be under the jurisdiction of UNESCO, since they are literally the distilled cultural output of humanity.

  • 0 Posts
  • 64 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 5th, 2025

help-circle














  • First: It’s pirated content. I do not have an issue with playing fast and loose with copyright, but Wikipedia shouldn’t have started linking there, because pirated content of this volume has the side effect of involving authorities pretty fast. Wikipedia has enemies, they are rich and ressourceful, and this is an attack surface they shouldn’t have.

    Second: People do not tend to trust others who behave erratically, and when trust is eroded it’s not so easy to fix it again. In reality it’s this way: nobody knows if the content there has been modified, and trust was the only thing holding all this together.


  • To be fair, your argument has been made by others on the RfC too, comparing the situation with Wikipedia linking to Anna’s Archive.

    Truth is, when being honest, Wikipedia should never have started linking there. It probably started out of noble intentions: making sure sources stay available for everyone.

    Now a new factor has come into play - that the site is being weaponized. The admin there has surely the ability to modify whatever he wants, create fake articles, change the wording of others and so on, and has now proven - without a single doubt - that he is not trustworthy.

    This means that the reliability of all hosted information has to be questioned as well. And here we are.


  • Using visiting clients for attacking makes the site malicious, and it’s because the owner decided it should be, not because it was hacked or got served “spicy” ads or something.

    Since this jarhead has no qualm in weaponizing his site, dragging every visitor into this, and threatening the owner of a small blog with creating a whole category of AI porn just for a blog post from 2 years ago: what if he decides he could use visiting clients for other uses, like crypto mining? If my wiki had 700k links pointing there, i’d think hard about my choices, and would want to reduce my dependency on such a source.




  • No, the original blogpost did not dox the .today owner, it just unearthed some other alias and the general idea that the owner might sit in russia.

    2 years pass.

    Now Tucows (the domain registrar for .today) got a demand from the FBI for all data they have on .today, which caused news pieces where the blog post was linked.

    The .today owner wanted the blog post not reachable from those news articles, and sent an email to the blog owner with the request to “take the blog post down for a few months” so that the news articles wouldn’t link there anymore. Sadly, that mail went into the spam folder and the blogger didn’t see it.

    Because there was no reaction to his mail, the owner of .today put code into his captcha page, DDoS-ing the blog. The blogger and the .today-owner later did mail with each other, but the .today-owner seems to be a pretty unreasonable and rude person.

    Wikipedia is now split: on the one side, .today is the actual best archive site, because it doesn’t care about copyright, censorship and employs advanced scraping techniques, which can bypass a lot of paywalls (which the internet archive does not do). This makes it great for citing sources. On the other side it’s not very trustworthy to insert code in your captcha page that makes your computer part of a DDoS attack.

    So now there are 3 options for wikipedia.

    • a) remove all archive.today links: this would be very,very disruptive since around 700k links on wikipedia would go dead
    • b) phase out archive.today, so that no new links are getting added in the future - that implies looking for an alternative, which could even be the wikimedia foundation itself
    • c) do nothing

    Hope it helps with the confusion!