It's not just problematic content, it's criminal behavior. And the site has a bad reputation for archival, given that the owner altered the content of archived articles.
The site commits copyright infringement by showing you content it doesn't have the rights for. This is not the kind of site to go on about morals for.
>the site has a bad reputation
Not compared to archive.org. archive.is has a much better track record.
>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?