Permit

The owner of archive.is modifies contents of articles already so I hope you’re not actually depending on it as an archive. It’s a paywall escape hatch not an archive site.

You are attempting to perform a rhetorical sleight of hand here. You are well aware that linking to a Stack Exchange post and running WHOIS is not grounds for a DDoS as a measured response. In light of this fact, you attempt to portray it as “doxxing” to mislead people into thinking that someone’s identity or address was published against their will.

I encourage everyone to read the original article and make their own conclusion. Do not take this poster at their word.

> Being left beaten and bleeding in an alley to get a small taste of what life has to offer would do him a lot of good

This is unhinged.

>This is great. Journalists are impeding the preservation of the historical record by blocking archivist traffic while simultaneously manhunting those archivists who find ways around their authwalls.

You are deliberately misrepresenting the situation. The journalists who block archivist traffic are not in any way connected to the blogger who was attempting to investigate the creator of archive.is. You have portrayed them as related in an attempt to garner sympathy for the creator of archive.is.

Here is an account of the facts: https://gyrovague.com/2026/02/01/archive-today-is-directing-...

> kinda the same technique Democrats want to use as well with their "pack the SCOTUS" campaigns. They want to shove a bunch more justices in there so they can get their way.

Did this take place? Or is it just a fear of a hypothetical?

He's being dishonest. He's attempting to promote Zenflow (a tool created by his employer Zencoder). He's produced AI slop (that he has not even read!) as a vehicle to promote Zenflow and get it in front of eyeballs on HackerNews.

> and done a high-level pass on the rest.

Why would I read your book if you have not read your book?

Edit: I now understand what is going on here. This is an attempt to promote Zenflow. The GitHub account (https://github.com/amoilanen/) is Anton Moilanen who is an employee at Zencoder, the creators of Zenflow.

The account (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jsontwikkeling) was created 86 days ago the same day as this Show HN post was created: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46290617

It would probably be worth the moderator's time to see if this post was part of a coordinated upvote ring as well.

> i don't know anything specific about the site or any conflicts involved, yet this smells like a negative PR campaign to me...

What possible value could a comment from someone who has no knowledge of the site or conflict add to this discussion?

> and to likely sell to 3rd parties.

Can you provide literally any evidence that would suggest this is the case?

> You attack a straw-man: banning all the content from creators.

They didn't say this.

> Copyright infringement use to be the absolute worst crime imaginable if you asked the tech industry

Every day hundreds of links to archive.is are posted[1] to this website to get around paywalls. Technologists built file sharing tools to subvert copyright. It has never been one of the worst crimes imaginable in tech circles.

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastWeek&page=0&prefix=tru... (85 instances in the last week)

It's always amusing that you cannot tell people this rule without in fact breaking it yourself.

> About 10 years ago we had a scenario where bots probably were only 2-5% of the conversation and they absolutely dominated all discussion.

This was definitively not the case on HackerNews.

It's possible that different people flag the discussions you're referring to. That said, it looks like there have been ~7 threads with over 100 points on Iran in the last week alone: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastWeek&page=0&prefix=tru...

If anything, it appears that Minnesota/Minneapolis are under-discussed relative to Iran, no?

> Obviously I think that AI generated undressing pictures of people, especially minors, is bad and there should be safeguards against that.

It's not obvious to me that this is your position. What safeguards do you propose as an alternative to those discussed in the article?

> It's not an entirely different problem because the main method through which moderators are mean is in closing new questions as dupes

This discussion needs a grounded definition of "toxic" then.

Elsewhere in this thread I see:

> I disagree with this. You can tell someone that a question is not appropriate for a community without being a jerk. Or you can tell them that there needs to be more information in a question without being a jerk. I do not think being mean is a prerequisite for successful curation of information.

So we're all speaking about different things it appears.

> I remember that half the time the top result was someone asking the question I had, only for it to be duped to a different question that didn’t answer the original.

This is an entirely different problem than toxicity is it not? Like, if the moderators are bad at their job that seems uniquely different than the moderators were mean to me while doing their job.

StackOverflow was successful explicitly because of the people/question it excluded. The "toxicity" was the point. It was trying very very hard not to become Yahoo Questions. If you want to hear more about this you should watch Joel Spolsky's talk "The Cultural Anthropology of Stack Exchange": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpGA2fmAHvM

The point of StackOverflow was explicitly not to help the question-askers, but to prioritize the people who would reach the question via Google. That's why so many people have bad stories about times they went to ask questions on StackOverflow: it was supposed to be very high-friction and there was supposed to be a high standard for the questions asked there.

Now with LLMs users get the best of both worlds. They don't need to use Google to find a high-quality StackOverflow question/answer AND they can ask any question even if it's been asked 1,000 times before or is low-quality or would lead to discussion rather than a singular answer.

> You should consider dropping that instinct.

This is the reason we have people mistakenly repeating the conclusion that AI consumes huge amounts of water comparable to that of entire cities.

If you make any other assumption than "I don't know what's happening here and need to learn more" you'll constantly be making these kind of errors. You don't have to have an opinion on every topic.

Edit: By the way, I also don't think we should trust big companies indiscriminately. Like, we could have a system for pesticide approval that errs on the side of caution: We only permit pesticides for which there is undisputed evidence that the chemicals do not cause problems for humans/animals/other plants etc.

Is there anything he could have done that you would not excuse by the society in which he was born?

How many people die each year from panic attacks?

> some frequency

This is a weasel word you've inserted to be intentionally misleading.

Can you (instead of pontificating about media literacy) share evidence that Tesla is currently battery-limited?

> Now, instead of meeting our demands for living wages, the CEO has announced a new round of jobs hirings internationally

I’m convinced that in ~10 years we’ll look back on the work-from-home movement as a major own-goal by American tech workers. I would expect a lot more of this.

> capital, talent and trust are flowing out of that country

Is there non-anecdotal evidence of this that you can share with us?

My understanding is that people make this claim but I haven't seen evidence of it beyond one-off articles about individual professors leaving the country.

> [Edit: Hunh. Imagine that. I ask people to demonstrate their unwillingness to participate in meaningful dialog by down-voting this post and they do exactly that. Si Tacuisses, Philosophus Mansisses.]

I was considering commenting when I originally downvoted but thought it would detract from the core conversation.

But now that you’ve added this bit I’ll just say: a number of people (including myself) will auto-downvote any comment that complains about impending downvotes regardless of other content.

> but if an idea takes 20 years and $100M dollars to develop, and there are no protections for ideas, then no one will take the time to develop them

This sounds trivially true but I have some trouble reconciling it with reality. For example the Llama models probably cost more than this to develop but are made freely available on GitHub. So while it’s true that some things won’t be built, I think it’s also the case that many things would still be built.

Yes.

If they run a red light today there is some small chance they will injure/kill someone.

If they run a red light with a camera, there is a 100% chance they will receive a ticket.

The key factor is not the magnitude of the penalty (i.e. whether someone dies or they receive a fine) but the chance that they will encounter the penalty.

> I acknowledge, by the way, that I use Google services to run my vanity domain, including my web site and mail server. It's a hassle to move all that, but one I am ever nearer to taking on.

> And a final response is for the engineers who work for these big tech companies simply to refuse to build systems that work this way. If you're at Google, you have agency – you decide what code you write. Yeah, I know: "No" might get you fired. But there are other jobs.

Am I to understand that it’s too much of a hassle to move domains but not to change jobs (after being fired, no less)?