Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
JasonADrury | on: Cloudflare flags archive.today as "C&C/Botnet"; no longer resolves via 1.1.1.2
[flagged]
47282847 | parent | next
One side publishes words, the other DDoSes. One side could just ignore the other and go about their business, the other cannot. One is using force, which naturally leads to resistance and additional attention, the other is not.

Both sides look like they have been bullied in the past and not found their way out of reproducing the pattern yet.

croes | root | parent | next
Words can have bad consequences. We‘ll see what will happen to Banksy after Reuters published words.
JasonADrury | root | parent
[flagged]
47282847 | root | parent
Words can have influence and can come from a place of authority, which does carry responsibility. Words of a president are very different from words published on a random blog by some random person, and different yet again from words published by a newspaper. Some presidents words are opinion, the same words in different context are commands and not acting on them comes at a price.

Context matters. Which is why also different rules apply, and laws exist to guard these rules. DDoS is not an acceptable response in any jurisdiction, no matter what triggered them. We’re not in the Middle Ages, even if some behave like we are. Violence does not justify violence. Unjust action does not justify unjust responses.

throwingcookies | parent | next
> The blog is still online and only exists as a part of a harassment campaign targeting archive.today

The blog has a lot of more posts on random topics. Why do you imply that the owner of the bloh is part of a harassment campaign and "only" that is the reason for this years old blog to exist?

JasonADrury | root | parent
Because all the content in the past 4+ years is about archive.today?
Mogzol | root | parent | next
Not true: https://gyrovague.com/2025/02/23/anatomy-of-a-boarding-pass-...

There are only two posts about archive.today on the blog, and one of them only exists because archive.today started DDoSing them. I fail to see how you could consider the entire blog to be a "harassment campaign", especially considering that the original blog post isn't even negative, it ends with a compliment towards archive.today's creator.

winkelmann | root | parent | next
> all the content in the past 4+ years is about archive.today

But it's not? This was published between the two posts about archive.today: https://gyrovague.com/2025/02/23/anatomy-of-a-boarding-pass-...

JasonADrury | root | parent
Okay, there's one filler post I missed. I'm sure it took a lot of time to write the 16739382nd post explaining what the various things on a boarding pass mean.
ahhhhnoooo | root | parent
They have posted twice in four years. Once doing some digging into who runs archive today, and a second time to respond to a ddos attack.

Writing about being ddos'd seems eminently reasonable. So if you elide that, you are talking about a single article in four years.

It's genuinely nothing.

JasonADrury | root | parent | next
The purpose of a thing is what it does.
throwingcookies | root | parent
> The purpose of a thing is what it does.

What is the purpose of the DDoS JS in the archive website then? Not DDoS?

JasonADrury | root | parent
I'm sure it's DDoS, just like the purpose of gyrovague.com is to attack archive.today

Easy stuff, no?

ahhhhnoooo | root | parent
Attack? Did we read the same one article? One article is clearly defensive. The other is a piece of investigative journalism about who and how the site is run.

Neither of those is an attack.

JasonADrury | root | parent
Of course attempting to dox someone is an attack.
throwingcookies | root | parent
> Of course attempting to dox someone is an attack.

That's not how the judicative system works.

| root | parent
{"deleted":true,"id":47475372,"parent":47475188,"time":1774166219,"type":"comment"}
jrflowers | root | parent | next
This is a weird way of saying that you wish gyrovague updated more frequently. You could just say “Big fan of his writing, I’d love it if he posted more” if your only complaint is that there aren’t enough recent blog posts on that website
| root | parent
{"deleted":true,"id":47475224,"parent":47475078,"time":1774163989,"type":"comment"}
longislandguido | parent | next
You think DDoS (which is illegal btw) is okay as long as you don't like the target?
DaSHacka | root | parent | next
Considering the site itself is an illegal archive of websites, I think its obvious most of us don't treat what's 'legal' as a guide to whats 'moral'.
JasonADrury | root | parent | next
I, like almost all people, firmly believe that dropping bombs on people is okay as long as I find the target sufficiently despicable.

Why are you pretending to be surprised by this view that is held by approximately every single person in the world?

Or do you think we should have different standards for DDoS and actual violence?

RobotToaster | root | parent
Harassment an doxing are both illegal.
hrimfaxi | root | parent
Doxxing is illegal? I am against it but if it's republishing public info I don't think it can be illegal in the US unless there is an intent element.
RobotToaster | root | parent
The blog author is in Finland, so it's covered by the Article 8 right to privacy of the ECHR. The exact implementation is country dependent, I don't know how it works in Finland but in the UK we just extended the common law tort of "Breach of confidence" to it.
riedel | parent
While I would it also better to a bit redact names and details mentioned in the original article in hindsight, I hardly find real defamation. I guess you want to provide random unproven evidence if someone is target of various foreign law enforcement and commercial sites. In the article they even call for donations to archive.today . As far as I read the tone of the post is full of admiration. Funny thing is that IMHO the rather childish JavaScript attack gives credibility to the post after all. In all this I somehow hope that we see a legal solution to all this major global copyright crisis that has been reinforced by LLM training. (If you want conspiracy theory: that I guess would be easy monetization for archive these days selling their snapshots)
JasonADrury | root | parent
Defamation? No.

Doxing? Yes.

It's clear that the person running archive.today does not actively publicize their identity.

> As far as I read the tone of the post is full of admiration

Exactly like an unhinged fan stalking a celebrity.

riedel | root | parent
Totally agreed. Thanks for raising awareness.

Thinking about it, I think we might need better platform rules, maybe even regulations on this. There seems to be pretty much no line of defense, which might explain the rather desperate DoS. If you take anonymity as a right, discussion like ours here on HN are dangerous as well, as they easily make otherwise difficult to find knowledge easily visible. So while a single fan page might go unnoticed, in case of doxing amplification is also a problem. Just my spontaneous thought.

Edit: one afterthought. The story about hacking together a response to the GDPR takedown request quoting press rights and freedom of speech using an LLM shows actually the deeper problem. Actually rights come with obligations (at least ethical ones). At least in Europe press standards are typically rather aware of doxing risks. While actually celebraties also successfully use legal defenses, i still think the defenses for activist are weak balancing interest here (at least if you made something of public interest)