It's not just problematic content, it's criminal behavior. And the site has a bad reputation for archival, given that the owner altered the content of archived articles.
>the site has a bad reputation
Not compared to archive.org. archive.is has a much better track record.
Archive.org is awful. It allows site owners and random third parties to edit old archived pages.
Archive.today does not.
At least site owners have the copyright on the pages that Archive.org saves. They can just get the content pulled through DMCA anyway.
The operator of archive.today (presumably one, at most a handful of people) can edit archived pages on archive.today
Literally anyone can edit archived pages on archive.org.
There are literally at least hundreds of thousands of tampered archives on archive.org. How is that not worse than the couple of tampered archives on archive.today?
Do you actually mean edit or do you just mean delete
Both are problematic, but falsifying a historic record is orders of magnitude worse than deleting one, and conflating them would be extremely dishonest
Not true
>Archive.org is awful. It allows site owners and random third parties to edit old archived pages.
Also not true. However, Archive.today edits archived pages itself.
How is that supposed to be a big deal when the one of core services archive.today provides is obviously illegal anyway?
I also think "but they also do that other crime" doesn't help their case.
It's problematic because it's childish and pointlessly degrades the user experience.