alt Hacker NewsCorrect: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.
Replies
fn-mote • today at 1:00 AM
> 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.
DaSHacka • yesterday at 10:52 PM
Ironically, your framing of the situation is infinitely more disingenuous to push a personal agenda versus anything the archive.today guy did.
> Why folks continue to use them confuses me.
I use them. I haven't ever heard mention that the content is edited. Do you have a source?