Thread

1. simonw · 1789496872 · focus · HN ↗

   > Here’s what’s going on. The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine has been hit by waves of high-volume automated traffic, and we’ve put protections in place to keep the service running.

   I'm pretty certain this is scrapers that are trying to workaround blocks on accessing original sites by hitting the Wayback Machine copy instead. Appalling behavior.

   In addition to the load it puts on this vital non-profit piece of Internet infrastructure, we've also already seen some sites opt out of the Wayback Machine to prevent their content from being scraped via this alternative route.

   1. packetslave · 1789496974 · focus · HN ↗

      This is absolutely something that's happening. There are even paid scraper API's that offer "Wayback Machine fallback" as a feature.

      1. bsimpson · 1789498205 · focus · HN ↗

         It's an open secret that you can often circumvent paywalls by searching Wayback.

         1. gambiting · 1789498379 · focus · HN ↗

            Every single paid article linked on HN has the way back machine link as the very first comment.

            1. ValentineC · 1789498448 · focus · HN ↗

               The links are usually to Archive.today (aka archive.ph and a bunch of other domains), not Wayback Machine (which is run by Internet Archive).

               1. eek2121 · 1789510672 · focus · HN ↗

                  Correct:Also, archive.* has actively edited archived sites to promote their agenda. Why folks continue to use them confuses me. One would think the big wikipedia purge would curb such behavior.

                  1. fn-mote · 1789520432 · focus · HN ↗

                     > Why folks continue to use them confuses me.

                     Seems like the “confused” is disingenuous when not paying for content you read is a clear motivation.

                     1. opello · 1789529906 · focus · HN ↗

                        Convenience as a higher order motivator than disgust at the bad behavior of archive.{today,ph,...} mentioned elsewhere, I think is the point of the comment to which you replied.

                        1. IAmBroom · 1789566646 · focus · HN ↗

                           Convenience is by definition one step.

                           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?

                           1. thereforegrin · 1789573225 · focus · HN ↗

                              disgust is the simplest of emotions and so requires none of what you claim.

                              You're mistaking it with substantiated criticism.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.