dan@upvote.au 2 days ago
This is understandable, but at the same time, none of the anti-paywall lists are as good as archive.today. They actually have paid accounts at a bunch of paywalled sites, and use them when scraping.
betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 2 days ago
CombatWombat@feddit.online 2 days ago
Unfortunately, they’ve allegedly modified the contents of some archived articles, so even though they may do better to archive, nothing archived is of any value because it cannot be trusted.
0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
So are they removing all other websites that post lies or modify their articles to suit their narrative at times?
Fox news? MSN? CNN? BBC? Reuters? AP?
Why the sudden urge to validate the archives? How many articles have been proven to be modified?
Seems like they’ve been wanting to remove an entity the empire doesn’t control and they’re using this as a cover to do it.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 11 hours ago
that’s exactly one of the main reason they use archive sites for citations. but when an archival site does that it becomes useless.
Scrollone@feddit.it 2 days ago
What if somebody used archive.today to bypass a paywall and then archived that using Web Archive? (So we’re sure the content stays the same)
tyler@programming.dev 1 day ago
They’re injecting data into the sites during archive so that wouldn’t work.