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.
The purpose of a thing is what it does.
> The purpose of a thing is what it does.
What is the purpose of the DDoS JS in the archive website then? Not DDoS?
I'm sure it's DDoS, just like the purpose of gyrovague.com is to attack archive.today
Easy stuff, no?
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.
{"deleted":true,"id":47475372,"parent":47475188,"time":1774166219,"type":"comment"}