Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

85% Positive

Analyzed from 944 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#archive#org#https#donation#internet#donate#today#guy#sites#ddos

Discussion (41 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

Cider9986about 2 hours ago
THere's also archive.today who does great user-directed archiving. We don't appreciate this infrastructure some random guy runs enough.

It's annoying how often archive.org blocks sites but they both complement each other very well.

https://liberapay.com/archiveis/donate

https://coindrop.to/archive

When finding archive.today's Monero donation address just now, I had to use archive.org because donatemonero.org [1] is down.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260526080016/https://donatemon...

LeoPantheraabout 2 hours ago
Um. You mean the same site that uses its captcha page to DDOS sites the owner doesn't agree with, and was banned from use on Wikipedia because the owner was modifying the archived pages?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today#2026_attack_on_G...

I don't think we should be supporting this random guy, no.

progval40 minutes ago
> to DDOS sites the owner doesn't agree with

to DDOS one website, which is doxxing the owner. Not that it makes it good idea, but it's a little more understandable.

bulder2 minutes ago
DDoSing a website, modifying their archives surreptitiously to serve their own wants (which was what tipped Wikipedia towards banning their use), running weird sockpuppet campaigns to build dependence on them, and fucking with Cloudflare's DNS resolution to prevent anti-tracking measures from working.

Oh and even if I wanted to ignore all of this, I couldn't use them anyways because they blackholed the majority of Finnish IP ranges after the DDoS incident to I guess punish the entire country for the targeted blogger being born here.

Cider9986about 1 hour ago
And archive.org removes perfectly legal content from their accessible archives. Nobody's perfect. The guy running archive.today has done a shit ton of good.
andaiabout 2 hours ago
Well then another guy should provide a technically equivalent and morally superior service ;)
markasoftwareabout 1 hour ago
I mean, lots of other archive.* sites exist and do the same thing minus problematic behavior, such as archive.is, archive.oh (though maybe some are operated by the same individual...)
qingcharlesabout 2 hours ago
Absolutely deserves a donation too. How it keeps running is beyond me, especially as he/she/they keep adding more paywall bypasses on the backend.
zetanorabout 1 hour ago
I like the theory of the IA enough that I have a reoccurring donation, but I've thought a few times about e-mailing them to cancel (they have to halt your monthly donation charges manually). There's plenty of things I can overlook, like having to compete with scrapers to get a single page to load, or a myriad of longstanding technical issues (my favorite being that the collection upload system silently and irrevocably leaks your e-mail address: https://archive.org/post/240444/help-to-hide-email (2009)). What's a lot harder to overlook is that the IA brazenly hosts warez on clearnet and pulls off stunts like the COVID "emergency library".

I'm all for ending copyright, but does any of that really need to be linked with the Wayback Machine? Huge chunks of the Web have been displaced or snuffed by social media and gen AI, making Wayback a unique(ly valuable) source of information and history. It's not my call, but it seems strange to risk it as a motte for the bailey of copyright abolition activism. What happens when some stick-up-the-ass company—whose stuff is probably in hundreds of different collections—decides it really wants a payday?

pm90about 2 hours ago
It was super easy to donate; Im so glad they have a landing page that supports several payment methods and makes it easy to donate. I love the wayback machine, hope everyone pitches in : ).
arjieabout 2 hours ago
I do like the Internet Archive but I wish I could retrieve large segments from it myself. It has very aggressive 429s. It would be a nice higher donor tier feature. Maybe it’s not possible to do so and retain 501c3 status? Regardless I have had to start performing personal datahoarding. C’est la vie.
thechairman12about 2 hours ago
They posted on X about supporting this when someone was spamming them with requests
eruabout 2 hours ago
I wonder if they could sell you access to a bittorrent tracker? Officially it would be independent of the donations, just an extra service they sell?
queenkjuulabout 1 hour ago
They have torrent downloads for a lot of content, I've downloaded almost a terabyte from them via torrent, they're just not bundled, as in you would need to retrieve each torrent file for each item individually, which might still get you a 429 if you automated it idk.

I've never actually got a 429 using a browser though personally, they do throttle aggressively though

sonicrocketmanabout 3 hours ago
Just posting this so others can be reminded to donate the archive (no association by me, just a fan).
abeyer26 minutes ago
"Keep running" is interesting phrasing, given that wayback has been serving me nothing but some mix of timeouts, 429 errors, and "Temporarily Offline" messages for weeks.
totalconfusionabout 2 hours ago
Who's paying?
lukeify12 minutes ago
Truly stunning that they omitted this information.
killingtime74about 2 hours ago
I click through to a few links and cannot find who is doing the matching
Daneel_about 1 hour ago
That’s what I want to know before committing too.
colesantiagoabout 2 hours ago
Let's be honest, almost nobody is donating a significant amount i.e. $100K+ to the Internet Archive that would actually keep them alive.

Everyone wants to scrape and extract from them 100% for free.

j16sdiz43 minutes ago
No. The question OP ask was.... who is paying for the matching?

The donation got 3x, sure somebody is paying, right?

I was planning to donate, and this omission stopped me.

foo4238 minutes ago
Internet Archive feels like an important... well, archive, yet I often worry about the load, financial and potentially political, which is put on it when people use it as a workaround for pay-walls, as is often advocated on HN
qingcharlesabout 2 hours ago
Just donated. Appreciate the reminder.
akudhaabout 2 hours ago
How do they handle AI slop? If they index AI generated articles, it is just not sustainable, right?
crewman9about 2 hours ago
Yeah, _no_

Shut ClimateGPT down, apologize and then we can talk about donation.

LastTrainabout 2 hours ago
That is Internet Archive Europe, which is independent from Internet Archive
eruabout 2 hours ago
Interesting. How is ClimateGPT linked to archive.org, and why do you object to it?
kallebooabout 2 hours ago
stonogoabout 2 hours ago
ClimateGPT is built by Erasmus.AI, which says "Built by Erasmus.AI on behalf of the ClimateGPT Foundation, and supported by the Internet Archive Europe,".

Brewster Kahle, Internet Archive founder (and board chair), is on the board of Erasmus.AI.

It does seem weird to rattle the donation box because hosting costs are going up while shooting money at the prime cause of hosting costs going up.

LastTrainabout 2 hours ago
They are independent organizations with separate funding.
RileyJamesabout 2 hours ago
What should archive.org apologise for in this regard?
Advertisement
TekMol21 minutes ago
I still don't get how copying copyrighted content to your own website and then asking for donations can be a legal business model. Nor how it can be morally justified.

I get that many people like such an archive to be around for consumption. Me too. But, keeping emotions aside, I can't find a justification to violate the rights of creators.

I'm sure many people here will have the knee-jerk reaction to immediately downvote this question. But I know there are also thoughtful people on HN. If some of you have ideas about the legal and moral justification for archive.org's actions, I would like to hear them.

neilwilson13 minutes ago
Copyright is a legal grant from the public to the individual.

Perhaps it is time to recognise that this literal Mickey Mouse law needs to be rebalanced more in favour of the public than the monopolist, as that creates better societal outcomes.