Wouldn't it be precisely because archives are important that using something known to modify the contents would be avoided?

> there's no credible alternative to this one.

But this one is not credible either so...

What exactly is credible about archive.today if they are willing to change the archive to meet some desire of the leadership? That's not credible in the least.

The operators() of archive.today (and the other domains) are doing shadey things and the links are not working so why keep the site around as for example Internet archives waybackmachine works as alternative to it.

> Fact is, archives are essential to WP integrity and there's no credible alternative to this one.

Yes, they are essentional, and that was the main reason for not blacklisting Archive.today. But Archive.today has shown they do not actually provide such a service:

> “If this is true it essentially forces our hand, archive.today would have to go,” another editor replied. “The argument for allowing it has been verifiability, but that of course rests upon the fact the archives are accurate, and the counter to people saying the website cannot be trusted for that has been that there is no record of archived websites themselves being tampered with. If that is no longer the case then the stated reason for the website being reliable for accurate snapshots of sources would no longer be valid.”

How can you trust that the page that Archive.today serves you is an actual archive at this point?

Did you not read the article? They not only directed a DDOS against a blogger who crossed them, but altered their own archived snapshots to amplify a smear against them. That completely destroys their trustworthiness and credibility as a source of truth.