JasonADrury

The blog post was written by AI. "luxury" is one of the adjectives AI likes to use a lot.

The DDoS is pretty obviously ridiculous, completely unacceptable, and entirely indefensible, while the blog post seems like whatever

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.

Where did I ever argue that?

It's obviously not "a-ok". It's just "meh", a silly childish tantrum.

the way Jason Drury shifts from “tried to dox” to “doxx’d”

I double-checked all my comments, that never happened.

The weird part to me is that some people are seemingly trying to downplay a popular website abusing visitors to DDoS someone.

What's the true, practical impact being downplayed here?

Nonsense, by the mid-aughts google searches and whois lookups were key tools for doxing. If you had been around in the hacker scene at that time, you'd be well aware instead of trying to inject fabricated mystique.

We called this exact pattern of behaviour "doxing" on IRC in the early 2000s, I really don't know why you think I'm using some new definition.

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.

Ulysses is not enjoyable.

You've caught me!

Of course attempting to dox someone is an attack.

Right, yes, because the people doing this totally don't know that they're breaking the law?

Also documenting who funds a service is in the public interest.

Not really, no. It's not unlikely to result in the service ceasing to exist.

I think the DDoS is clearly problematic, I just don't think it's problematic because it's criminal.

It's problematic because it's childish and pointlessly degrades the user experience.

Archive.org has an even worse history of this, FWIW.

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.

I don't see how this description changes the fundamental nature of your actions.

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.

I'm sure it's DDoS, just like the purpose of gyrovague.com is to attack archive.today

Easy stuff, no?

I suggest you double-check that. Archive.today/archive.is is the one which bypasses paywalls and makes unreadable content readable, not archive.org

Defamation? 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.

So far, the only sin archive.today has been accused of is retaliating against a guy attempting to dox them.

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 Patokallio who runs gyrovague.com published a blog post attempting to dox the owner of archive.today.

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

Or are we just looking at an unhinged fan stalking their favorite online celebrity?

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.

The purpose of a thing is what it does.

It's not just problematic content, it's criminal behavior.

How is that supposed to be a big deal when the one of core services archive.today provides is obviously illegal anyway?

Okay, there's one filler post I missed. I'm sure it took a lot of time to write the 16739382nd post explaining what the various things on a boarding pass mean.

Because all the content in the past 4+ years is about archive.today?

Nobody knows. If Trump follows through with his latest threat, the answer could feasibly turn out to be "decades".

How is that an example of the big players defrauding the common people?

Iran, a fundamentalist fanatic country

United States, a fundamentalist fanatic country: https://bsky.app/profile/gregsargent.bsky.social/post/3mhgag...

Trying to hit the Burj Khalifa without targeting any military or high political office is terrorism.

It's really not credible to claim that Iran has made any serious efforts to hit the Burj Khalifa, they would have succeeded if they wanted to do this.

If something bad happened, it would be the first time. It's of course possible that some future substances might be more dangerous.

https://artists.spotify.com/artificial-streaming

Spotify clearly communicates that this is not allowed.