The end result is exactly the same.
Substitute almost any disruptive public service to see the issue with your line of reasoning. For example - you seem to think that [ bulldozing private property ] to "construct an emergency fire break" is somehow different than [ bulldozing private property ] for any other reason.
Never mind that the sort of scraping being objected to is actually harmful to service health while what the wayback machine does is almost entirely unnoticeable.
A "scraper" is simply an automated process that fetches URLs intended for display to a human, and processes it. The act of scraping doesn't imply anything about:
1. The frequency of the fetches,
2. The way that the resulting page is processed.
Search engines scrape. Again, they have to. Same goes for archive.org.
Thing is, there aren't tens of thousands of search engines/archive.orgs that can overload a site at once.
Hence, distinction without a difference.
I think it's a distinction worth making.
Not to mention that the Wayback Machine itself isn't exactly a good tool to bypass paywalls as most paid sites don't let them archive paywalled content anyway.
So Internet Archive, Archive.today, Archive.ph, etc. are all just means to the same end.
The internet archive is not designed to circumvent anything. It is not designed to "grant access without having your own access".
Archive.org exists to preserve historical snapshots of the public parts of websites, and not to bypass subscriptions or pay walls.
archive.org is the more straight-laced archive that doesn't circumvent sites that try to block it, and removes content they deem 'problematic' even if not illegal or requested by the site owner.
Meanwhile archive.today/ph/is/etc is the guerrilla alternative run by a die-hard datahoarder that seeks to archive the information itself, bypassing whatever blockers/login pages/whathaveyou to achieve the result.
It's nice to have both options. When I archive a site, I usually use both for added resiliency.
I use them. I haven't ever heard mention that the content is edited. Do you have a source?
They bulk replaced one string (a name) with another one across many archived pages, and added malicious code to all archive pages that would rapidly send requests to gyrovague.com in an attempt to DDOS them.
There's also a bunch of previous hackernews discussions about it:
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47474255
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624740
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46843805
And you obviously have no reason to believe me, but I was following this when it was happening at the start of this year and can confirm that the DDoS script and archive text replacements really did happen.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-might-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...?
Besides tampering with content, the site was also using visitors to DDOS a blog that mentioned the owner of archive.today.
Seems like the “confused” is disingenuous when not paying for content you read is a clear motivation.
Disgust requires research, analysis, and decision. The research alone is beyond most users' general practice.
Why would anyone walk in the front door when they could hop a fence, pry open a window, and crawl in?
You're mistaking it with substantiated criticism.
Because there's no working alternative.
Why being shy in the era of stealing AI?
You have to include more than that, this isn't common knowledge.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46843805
Wikipedia deprecates Archive.today, starts removing archive links (arstechnica.com) 616 points by nobody9999 6 months ago | hide | past | favorite | 368 comments
It's extremely reasonable to ask for a link, very easy to include one when making a claim, and attacking someone for asking for evidence is extremely anti-intellectual independent of the level of effort required.
(n.b. that doesn't excuse the hostile way that they asked for proof - "Let's all just believe this baseless assertion shall we")