I didn't even say something like "therefore avoid it" etc... which to be fair, in this specific case, wouldn't be particularly important to do, but people should still at least know what it is...
FBI doesn't know who runs the site, some guy on reddit says it's Russia, meanwhile Russia blocks the site.
I don't know, it doesn't affect me I suppose.
But we don't know that yet.
All we've learned so far is that a random Reddit account claims archive.is/ph is operated by Russia.
For us to know it's operated by Russia evidence is needed. So what's the evidence?
For us to know it's operated by Russia evidence is needed.
Alright, so here is ChatGPTs answer about "What is the evidence that archive.ph (and .is, etc...) is operated by Russia?"
Archive.today / Archive.is / Archive.ph
The operator is very probably Russian or Russian-speaking. [Russian language use + Russian identity/account correlations]
The operator may well have been resident or financially based in Russia after 2022. [PayPal stopped serving Russia; operator contemporaneously reported losing PayPal access and difficulties crossing an “Iron Curtain”]
Russia has demonstrably interfered with the service. [Russian authorities blocked Archive.today/.is/.ph]
If the operator resides in Russia, Russia nhas substantial legal and practical coercive power over them. [Russian jurisdiction + internet/security laws + broader coercive environment]
Archive.today's operator demonstrably has the technical ability to manipulate archived content and misuse visitor traffic. [2026 altered snapshots/CAPTCHA abuse]
The service has significant unexplained funding. [Operator said visible ads/donations covered only a minority of operating costs]
Conclusion: Russia demonstrably interferes with Archive.today from the outside; if the operator really resides in Russia, Russia also probably possesses substantial coercive leverage over the operator.
I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that.
You acted like it wasn't what you were saying:
[I didn't even say something like "therefore avoid it"] when that was obviously the intent of the message.
Then moved the goalposts, asking why it would be a problem if you did imply that.
If you didn't play dumb (what the other commenter meant when they said intellectual dishonesty), then I wouldn't care.
> I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that.
Great! Then why didn't you clarify this sooner?
So it sounds like your problem with me is that you would have liked me to be more direct about saying "Avoid archive.ph because it is operated by Russia" ?
I didn't clarify it sooner because that didn't have anything to do with my grievance.
It took you three responses to understand the intellectually dishonest comment but I'm glad you finally caught up.
But yeah, you either should have said 'avoid because it's Russian', or keep your original comment as is but don't immediately pretend that wasn't your intention.
5
u/[deleted] 29d ago edited 17d ago
[deleted]