JasonADrury
The DDoS hasn't even successfully taken the website down, so your objection is entirely ideological.
It's a pretty messed up ideology if attempting to take down a website is worse than potentially subjecting someone to violence by attempting to dox them and sharing your work.
It's obviously not "a-ok". It's just "meh", a silly childish tantrum.
I double-checked all my comments, that never happened.
What's the true, practical impact being downplayed here?
It's probable that in the later 00s this would have been called a "faildox", but it's still just a fundamentally dick move to try to identify someone online who doesn't want to be identified. It doesn't matter if you do a completely shit job at it.
It's all just publicly available information.
Anyway, I think a normal grown-up should be able to accept that we simply feel differently about just how unacceptable doxing is.
No, I think it's grounds for a much harsher response.
Even a bad attempt at doxing is a threat of violence.
> you attempt to portray it as “doxxing” to mislead people into thinking that someone’s identity or address was published against their will
This is you being dishonest, nothing I've said suggests that. The very comment you're replied to calls the doxing "half-assed".
Not really, no. It's not unlikely to result in the service ceasing to exist.
It's problematic because it's childish and pointlessly degrades the user experience.
It allows website owners and third parties to tamper with archived content.
Look here, for example: https://web.archive.org/web/20140701040026/http://echo.msk.r...
Archive.today is by far the best option available.
Even a half-assed attempt at doxing is still an attempt at doxing.
It'd be much easier to accept that you're acting in good faith had you deleted the post when it became obvious that the target doesn't appreciate it.
You could still do that, and it would very simply be the right thing to do.
Easy stuff, 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.
That's a pretty small sin in my book. To be written off as wildly unsuccessful but entirely justified self defense.
DDoSing gyrovague.com is silly, not evil.
The content on gyrovague.com which targets archive.today is evil, plain and simple.
Jani justifies his doxing as follows "I found it curious that we know so little about this widely-used service, so I dug into it" [1]
Archive.today on the other hand is a charitable archival project offered to the public for free. The operator of Archive.today risks significant legal liability, but still offers this service for free.
[1]: https://gyrovague.com/2026/02/01/archive-today-is-directing-...
It's weird to see people getting fixated on the DDoS, which is obviously far less nasty than actually attempting to dox someone. The only credible reason for Jani to publish something like this is if he desires to cause physical harm to the operator of archive.today
People were critical of the Banksy piece, but this is much nastier. At least Banksy is a huge business, archive.today does not even make money.
How is that supposed to be a big deal when the one of core services archive.today provides is obviously illegal anyway?
Jani Patokallio runs gyrovague.net in order to harass people who provide useful public services.
It's not surprising that the owner of archive.today does not like being exposed, archiving is a risky business.
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?
It's deliberately obtuse to suggest that "words" aren't a big deal.
>One is using force, which naturally leads to resistance and additional attention, the other is not.
I'd say attempting to dox someone and then spreading that information is deploying far more significant force than a minor lazy DDoS attack.
Doxing or attempting to dox someone is effectively threatening them with physical violence. A DDoS is nothing at all in comparison.
Unless you're arguing that the response by archive.today retroactively justifies the behaviour of Jani Patokallio, which would be a bizarre take.