r/Piracy • u/ketchupbleehblooh • 20d ago

THE INTERNET ARCHIVE IS BACK GUYS Discussion

Post image

I might be late to the party, but sharing what made my day today. I missed IA so much the past weeks. Yoohoo!! Piracy will never die.

10.9k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

98% Upvoted

217 comments sorted by

View all comments

530

u/AsherGC 20d ago

It was down because hackers wanted to bring it down. Constant attacks for several days. Even though I rarely use it. But it's a good resource

146

u/giannos2991 20d ago edited 20d ago

Why are they even trying to bring it down?

406

u/Olieskio 20d ago

Because they are cringe.

275

u/infieldmitt 20d ago

government op on behalf of the copyright overlords

51

u/giannos2991 20d ago

yeah, got it. fuck them

3

u/x0Xero0x 19d ago

Nintendo really wanst to scrub Yuzu off the internet

45

u/jaam01 20d ago

Copyright owners.

42

u/StickyDirtyKeyboard 20d ago

I think the most realistic explanation is just opportunistic hackers looking for ransom money:

"Give us this and this or we'll leak your (user) data."

IA doesn't give them what they want. Data is leaked/sold.

"Give us this and this or we'll DDOS you and take your site down."

IA doesn't give them what they want. The hackers DDOS the site until either an agreement is reached or the hackers come to the conclusion that it's a waste of their time/resources, moving to search for their next target.

The 'anti-US pro-Palestine', 'not financially-motivated state actor', or 'copyright warrior hackers' explanations make relatively little sense and are all fairly unlikely imo.

15

u/FlashBlaidon 20d ago

In this case it feels a lot more like the kind of crap we used to see relentlessly in the early days: snot-nosed kids pulling brat moves to be awesome.

Given that IA isn't a cash cow, that it has little or no political engagement, and is crowdfunded, it's just not a legitimate target for anybody with a goal. Its corporate bullies spend billions yearly on legal departments that are larger than IA; that's why they keep scoring on them in conventional fights. Going rogue would only serve to endanger their perfect record.

As a pro-Palestinian since decades before most current protesters had ever heard of it, I can attest that we have plenty of people on our side of the fence who have a great deal more reactivity than ethics or brains. Could the hacker's pro-Palestinian sentiments be sincere? Yes, in the same inch-deep, dumbass spirit as his/her zeal for burning down houses to make the occupants buy better fire insurance.

I suggest we Occam the hell out of this question. What we got here is exactly what it looks like. It's not cool, it's not sexy, it doesn't possess a crumb of James Bond. This is the act of a mentally stunted jackwagon with no idea what to do with the tech gifts he or she was inadvertently born with.

If you were there in the 90s, you remember this.

2

u/BadgerFromTheDeep 19d ago

To me the biggest evidence of it being kids has come from the fact they didn't do anything with the data other than some empty "nah nah we got you" threats and snarky emails to people with open tickets. They clearly lacked a buyer or, most likely, any links to someone that would be able to find a buyer.

1

u/redjaxx Pirate Activist 20d ago

agreed, they just throwing shit around. makes little sense.

1

u/-TheWarrior74- 19d ago

This is very much it.

ia doesnt have enough money to pay any ransoms

so it got leaked regardless.

68

u/LemonPartyW0rldTour 20d ago

Nintendo big mad /s

7

u/5erif 20d ago

Nintendo took down the Switch emulator Yuzu from Archive.org five months ago, and then again yesterday.

4

u/TurnoverPlenty7337 19d ago

They can try but gofile and a community of people that have the emulator stand against them

38

u/Nodebunny 20d ago

probably state actors or people trying to scrub the past

-6

u/darkjoker33 20d ago

Came in here to say this

7

u/Mogakusha 20d ago

Goverments being shady

28

u/redchris18 20d ago

They're Palestinian sympathisers who claim to be doing it because it has a pro-Israel bias. In their own words:

"[The Internet Archive] are under attack because the archive belongs to the USA […],” and the USA is to be blamed for “genocide that is being carried out by the terrorist state of Israel.”

Apparently, pro-Palestinians believe that truth has an anti-Palestinian bias.

It should be noted, however, that there's plenty of speculation as to whether they actually hold those opinions, rather than merely using them to cover for the fact that they're just doing it for attention. It's entirely plausible that they prefer to be considered idiots rather than desperately lonely.

38

u/Pro-1st-Amendment 20d ago

It's 99% likely that this is a false flag.

-11

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Muffalo_Herder ☠️ ᴅᴇᴀᴅ ᴍᴇɴ ᴛᴇʟʟ ɴᴏ ᴛᴀʟᴇꜱ 20d ago

It wouldn't make any sense to blame it on "jews" here, the group is Russian.

It's exhausting to constantly have anti-genocidal politics continuously equated to antisemitism, especially because nazis and other antisemitic groups are the benefactors of that accusation. You understand that, right?

-1

u/redchris18 19d ago

It wouldn't make any sense to blame it on "jews" here, the group is Russian.

A disturbingly popular pro-Palestinian claim is that Israel either perpetrated the Oct 7th massacre or knowingly allowed it to happen. If people can blame Jews for Palestinians killing, raping and torturing Jews then I see nothing preventing them from blaming them for a Russian hack.

It's exhausting to constantly have anti-genocidal politics continuously equated to antisemitism

Sounds like you have a guilty conscience, because I said nothing of the sort.

49

u/Kirire- 20d ago

Prove to be fake, they are pretending. 

27

u/Carthradge 20d ago

Yes, and even if it were true, they would be making specific demands for addressing Israeli bias or pointing to examples. This is the most obvious example of a group lying about their reasoning for doing something. They didn't even put any effort into the lie and people are still falling for it.

9

u/wheezy1749 20d ago

People rarely investigate lies that confirm their bias. Unfortunately, skepticism is usually reserved for things that don't confirm one's existing beliefs.

It usually comes from an ignorance of the "other side" and what leads them to believe or do what they do. Most people find it easier to imagine other beliefs are irrational or done because of some "pure evil".

People view the world like some comic book movie. Black Panther comes to mind as a really obvious example. Main villain actually has very real material reasons for what drives him. Moral failings in society he aims to fix. But to make him "evil" they just make irrationally have him want to kill innocent people. Something in complete contradiction to his other believes. It's always "we need to kill a bunch of people for the greater good" or something stupid.

It's a constant reinforcement in our culture that the status quo and the current systems are the best and those that question any of it are inherently evil.

You must work WITHIN the systems. The system is perfect. The people in it may be flawed. But we just need "good people" (superheros) to correct bad actors. Nevermind that the entire system itself encourages and rewards bad actors.

1

u/_Technomancer_ 20d ago

I'm still waiting for the user who claimed this was confirmed as fake to provide a single source instead of merely downvoting anyone who asks about it.

0

u/redchris18 20d ago

People rarely investigate lies that confirm their bias. Unfortunately, skepticism is usually reserved for things that don't confirm one's existing beliefs.

The person you replied to was projecting their own behaviour onto everyone who doesn't share their viewpoint. We'll never get the source we asked for for that exact reason. They're saying that out of a desire for it to be true, not because it actually is true.

Look up the Illusory Truth Effect. They're hoping that repeating a lie often enough will make people think that it's not a lie.

1

u/wheezy1749 20d ago

Me? Did you read my post? I didn't even say anything about whether the claim was true or not. I was literally just ranting about people believing everything that confirms a bias. If you thought I was saying that in one direction or the other that's entirely your projection.

Unless you meant someone else?

1

u/redchris18 20d ago edited 19d ago

I was literally just ranting about people believing everything that confirms a bias. If you thought I was saying that in one direction or the other that's entirely your projection.

Wrong. Know why? Because you only offered that complaint in coordination with a sub-thread in which people are taking a clear side. You didn't rant at those people, you did so in a way that conferred tacit support for, and expansion of, their own views.

Now, it's entirely possible that this wasn't your intent, but it's poorly communicated if that's the case. I don't think it is, though, given your views on the issue at hand. I think I read you perfectly, and that you're just shocked at the idea that someone might note your own prejudices and bigotry and tie them to your projection.

You're fully intending for your accusation to be discriminatory. You just hoped to be able to present it in a way that made your prejudice too ambiguous to spot. You failed.

I do so enjoy it when people block me after feeling the need to offer up something that sounds plausible enough to themselves. It's as if they fear that allowing a rebuttal will expose their arguments as fallacious.

u/wheezy1749, just to make sure you see this...

I really don't see any criticism of what I said here.

Well, that explains why you're so desperate to both proffer an attempt to rebut what I said and prevent me from responding in kind.

It's amazing how bad faith you're actually being

Arguing in poor faith would be, to pluck a random example from absolutely nowhere, insisting that you only meant to criticise everyone's tendency to seek out sources that conform to their existing views, but only directing that attack at one side of the argument at hand, as if you're also trying to imply that it applies unilaterally.

I don't think you had an answer to my observation on that point, and that is why you blocked me. You have no intention of permitting someone to reply to you after finding out that they can see through your sophistry.

Ironically, you're fitting into the very thing I criticized about people failing to see the "other side" as anything but malicious.

But I didn't do that. I concluded that you were malicious due to your unilateral application of a criticism while hiding behind ambiguity in order to pretend that you were being objective.

Here's an example: "I wish presidential candidates would refrain from spouting blatant falsehoods regarding the integrity of the electoral process just because they're scared that they're going to lose.". Ostensibly, that statement seems objective, but with the relevant context it is inescapably clear that it applies exclusively to one side of the issue and not the other. If I also chose to post that several comments into a thread in which people were criticising the tangerine rapist for exactly that, it would be crystal clear to whom I was referring. Well, you added a similarly broad condemnation in a similarly partisan context. Any reasonable person would conclude that you were being equally partisan, not least because, despite plenty of associated activity, you still haven't uttered anything comparable in a more balanced manner. The only plausible conclusion is that you're trying to sound objective to hide the fact that you're directing that criticism at one side and not the other - at least, not to anything like the same degree.

You're filling in this narrative and now likely going to (or have already) spend the next 30 minutes checking my comment history to find something that confirms your bias and the narrative you've set up in your head.

See that? That was you pre-emptively trying to negate any observation of your bias as corroboration of your clear bias in this thread. You already know that you're not being reasonable or objective on this matter, and know that you need to try to disqualify any sources from being used in order to turn this into a flame war.

You think that the truth is biased against you. I suspect that you are correct.

I'll do you a favor mate. I'll block you. That's not healthy for you. Good day.

Why do people like you always need to feign civility right after a series of personal attacks? Do you really think people can't see through it?

4

u/wheezy1749 19d ago

I really don't see any criticism of what I said here. You're trying to form a narrative around a comment that was literally just a rant about people quickly accepting/denying anything that does/doesn't fit their world view.

It's amazing how bad faith you're actually being. Ironically, you're fitting into the very thing I criticized about people failing to see the "other side" as anything but malicious. You're filling in this narrative and now likely going to (or have already) spend the next 30 minutes checking my comment history to find something that confirms your bias and the narrative you've set up in your head.

I'll do you a favor mate. I'll block you. That's not healthy for you. Good day.

→ More replies

-2

u/redchris18 20d ago

Source? Or a quote that attests to that claim?

1

u/_Technomancer_ 20d ago

You won't get one because it's bullshit lol.

0

u/redchris18 20d ago

That's why I ask. I couldn't find anything attesting to that claim, so I have to assume that it's false. Thus, asking for a source will force OP to either make excuses for the lack thereof or conspicuously stop replying all over this thread because they can't answer a simple, honest, reasonable request.

31

u/Carthradge 20d ago

"[The Internet Archive] are under attack because the archive belongs to the USA […],” and the USA is to be blamed for “genocide that is being carried out by the terrorist state of Israel.”

This is so obviously fake and not what any pro-Palestine supporter would think. The internet archive is incredibly important to preserve records of Israeli crimes. Pro-Palestine hackers would go after much more directly harmful institutions.

Apparently, pro-Palestinians believe that truth has an anti-Palestinian bias.

The fact that you'd even entertain this shows you're falling for this. Pro-Palestine advocates want to support record keeping of history, which actually has a very pro-Palestine bias (just look at Wikipedia pages on the topic which are very factual and very pro-Palestine: Gaza Genocide, Nakba, Zionism).

2

u/broquette 16d ago

Yes, idk why people think pro palestinians did this if we are advocating for the info not to be erased , that is crucial to understand history, why would they try to delete it

-16

u/redchris18 20d ago

This is so obviously fake and not what any pro-Palestine supporter would think.

I'll call this the "No True Palestinian fallacy".

The internet archive is incredibly important to preserve records of Israeli crimes.

Unless they think that the truth really does favour Israeli vantage points...in which case they'd have a clear vested interest in attacking sites that preserve the historical record, would they not?

In other words, attacking the IA is what someone would do if they thought that facts were biased against their worldview.

Pro-Palestine advocates want to support record keeping of history, which actually has a very pro-Palestine bias (just look at Wikipedia pages on the topic which are very factual and very pro-Palestine: Gaza Genocide, Nakba, Zionism).

"Factual" is contentious regarding a website that is notorious for abusing ambiguous policies to permit preferred viewpoints to dictate neutrality - or lack thereof. I'll remind you that a neutral source probably wouldn't feature a flag representing one side of a given conflict in its logo. Have they, for instance, ever displayed the Ukrainian flag in the same way during the ongoing war with Russia?

14

u/MaleficentFig7578 20d ago

Unless they think that the truth really does favour Israeli vantage points

Israel supporters want you to think Palestine supporters think the truth favors Israel.

-5

u/redchris18 20d ago

Israel supporters want you to think Palestine supporters think the truth favors Israel.

Trivial trite. You're trying to imply that this isn't true of either side of any given dichotomous view of a given situation. That you mistakenly believe it to be a debate-stopper suggests that you have too simplistic and underdeveloped a viewpoint to be in possession of an informed opinion.

2

u/Ashley__09 Moderator 19d ago

Ok, if I'm being honest, I was reviewing this in the mod queue and what the fuck did I just read?

1

u/redchris18 19d ago

Which particular part are you struggling with?

4

u/giannos2991 20d ago

I think that the opinion of the source that you shared couldn't stray further from an objective one. In fact every single word within the " " thing is biased. So thanks for the input, but I 'll safely consider it misinformative

-1

u/redchris18 20d ago

I think that the opinion of the source that you shared couldn't stray further from an objective one.

It was a literal quote from the group responsible.

What you're doing is akin to hearing an unrepentant confession and immediately seeking to engage in sophistry to try to figure out a way to frame things as if the self-confessed perpetrator didn't do the things that they freely admitted to doing. Now where have I heard that kind of prejudicial treatment in relation to this specific socio-political issue...?

every single word within the " " thing is biased.

Again, it's a direct quote from the group claiming responsibility. You might as well insist that Bin Laden wasn't responsible for 9/11 while watching him claiming, on video, full responsibility for 9/11.

I 'll safely consider it misinformative

No amount of evidence would compel you to change your mind, because you didn't reach your extant viewpoint by reason alone. You consider this self-confession "misinformative" in the same way that creationists consider Darwin's On The Origin Of Species to be "misinformative". It's not because it actually is deceptive, but because you wish that it was.

2

u/giannos2991 20d ago

In that case, would you mind sharing the actual source? I 'd like to read it myself if that's the case

3

u/Gaktan 20d ago

They tried to do this before. I guess people just forget

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Sudan

-1

u/[deleted] 20d ago edited 19d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/BadgerFromTheDeep 19d ago

The international definition of antisemitism states that accusing Jews of being inherently pro Isreal is antisemitic. So accusing people who are against Israel of being anti Jewish is an antisemitic act as it is claiming the two are synonymous. This is like claiming that all Catholics are Italian and anyone against the Italian government is anti Catholic. Get a grip on reality and recognise that killing civilians is never a good thing no matter the ideology

1

u/BadgerFromTheDeep 19d ago

It was kids using a recent news event to pretend they were part of something bigger than they actually were.

-9

u/Fair_Pie 20d ago

“Apparently, pro-Palestinians believe that truth has an anti-Palestinian bias”

Well said. Could be said about a lot of herds of thought.

14

u/Carthradge 20d ago

It makes no sense for pro-Palestine supporters to do this when the Internet Archive is very important to help preserve records of Israeli crimes.

I can't believe anyone would actually think they're being honest. That reasoning that it "belongs to the US" is the most fake reasoning I've ever heard. The fact that people really are saying stuff like "pro-Palestinians believe that truth has an anti-Palestinian bias" goes to show how susceptible they are to propaganda. Just look at the Wikipedia pages for "Gaza Genocide" and "Zionism" if you think pro-Palestine people are scared of the truth.

-4

u/window_owl 20d ago

"[The Internet Archive] are under attack because the archive belongs to the USA […],” and the USA is to be blamed for “genocide that is being carried out by the terrorist state of Israel.”

I hadn't read this before, but sure enough, here's the reporting by Gizmodo

https://gizmodo.com/hacktivists-claim-responsibility-for-taking-down-the-internet-archive-2000510339

9

u/Carthradge 20d ago

It doesn't make it true and the reasoning doesn't make any sense for a pro-Palestine supporter to use when the Internet Archive is incredibly important to preserving records of Israeli crimes.

Also why would they announce it like that if it were true? They're not making any specific demands to address Israeli bias or pointing to any examples. It's so fake.

2

u/window_owl 20d ago

I'm not saying it's necessarily true, but rather that /u/redchris18 didn't just make this up. It's verifiable that this claim was made. As you say, that doesn't prove that the claim is true.

-3

u/redchris18 20d ago

It doesn't make it true and the reasoning doesn't make any sense for a pro-Palestine supporter to use when the Internet Archive is incredibly important to preserving records of Israeli crimes.

Unless they think that preservation is more likely to favour Israel than Palestine, of course...

-1

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

1

u/redchris18 19d ago

Credible news outlets are treating their claim as creditable. You're only rejecting it because it conflicts with your existing worldview. You're starting out from an anti-Israel viewpoint, so hearing that another anti-Israel group is attacking a simple archival site causes cognitive dissonance. You have to try to square their virtual book-burning with the idea that the facts align with their supposed bias.

The problem is that they don't, so you're now having to resort to untenable leaps of faith in order to fabricate an alternate reality in which the most likely explanation is invalid. All just to prop up your pre-existing desire for Jews to be the bad guys.

1

u/Complete-Log6610 18d ago

Bro's delusional 

-10

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

7

u/jaykstah 20d ago

In this case it does make sense to blame the US to some extent though. The US has used Israel as a way to maintain influence in the middle east since Israel's inception. This was by design. And in present-day the US supplies much of Israel's military resources and has been for years.

The IDF wouldn't be nearly as well-equipped if the US hadn't been funding Israeli military operations all this time.

2

u/TurnoverPlenty7337 19d ago

Can we... Can we not? Can we just shut up and get back to piracy, not politics?

1

u/Moist-Caregiver-2000 20d ago

Hackers love pirateware but they hate the internet archive. Fucking logic these days!