the real goal here as Louis stated himself is this https://consumerrights.wiki/w/DMCA_Section_1201

as well as giving users the rightful choice about such things

bad call

it is a different angle of looking at this issue, and kind of shifts responsibility from their shitty practices over to us users

slippery slope approach, as we can see everywhere, this leads to more and more of such

I don't know I just started mocking everything and anything in there, its wall of shite and AI slop predominantly anyways, so why bother

that will be a blast

yeah some social interactions are 100% needed, even for hard core introverts

> Never used coal power: Albania, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Switzerland, Norway

this is the reason I never was keen on StackOverflow etc

tried posting there several times, many times actually - every time some annoying condition was not met

well screw you too then! walked away and never bothered to contribute again

indeed this needs to be updated a lot more often with the pace everything is moving..

---------

Here’s the chronology that the HN thread id=47092006 is about, based on the linked Ars Technica article and related sources.

---

## 1. What “started the argument”?

The core dispute starts from a 2023 blog post by engineer Jani Patokallio on his site Gyrovague, investigating who is behind archive.today. That post, plus later FBI interest, led to:

1. A *GDPR/takedown campaign* against the blog post. 2. An *apparent DDoS* launched from archive.today’s CAPTCHA page against his blog. 3. *Threats* from the archive.today operator (“Nora”) to associate Patokallio’s name with AI porn and other harassment. 4. *Discovery that archive.today had altered archived pages* to insert Patokallio’s name. 5. A *Wikipedia RfC* and decision to deprecate and blacklist archive.today links.

The Hacker News thread you referenced is about the final step: Wikipedia’s decision to remove ~695,000 archive.today links.

---

## 2. Timeline of the situation

```mermaid timeline title archive.today – Wikipedia controversy chronology

    2012-2015 : Site founded as archive.is; later branded archive.today
    2023-08-05 : Patokallio publishes investigation into archive.today’s ownership
    2025-10-30 : FBI subpoena to archive.today’s registrar (Tucows)
    2025-11-05 : Heise reports FBI subpoena, links to Patokallio’s 2023 post
    2026-01-08 : GDPR complaint from “Nora” to Automattic re Patokallio’s post
    2026-01-10 : archive.today webmaster emails Patokallio asking for temporary takedown
    2026-01-11 : DDoS from archive.today CAPTCHA page against Gyrovague begins
    2026-01-14 : First public HN report about weird/DDoS behavior from archive.today
    2026-01-21 : gyrovague.com added to DNS blocklists used by ad blockers
    2026-01-25 : Email exchange escalates; “Nora” threatens AI porn, “gay dating app”, “Nazi grandfather”
    2026-02-01 : Patokallio publishes detailed timeline and DDoS disclosure
    2026-02-07 : Wikipedia RfC opens on archive.today links
    2026-02-10 : Ars Technica reports on DDoS and Wikipedia considering blacklist
    2026-02-19 : DDoS code still present in archive.today CAPTCHA page (per Wikipedia guidance)
    2026-02-20 : RfC closed; consensus to deprecate/blacklist archive.today
    2026-02-20–21 : Major outlets report Wikipedia’s blacklist; guidance page created

So, in the terms of your question:

- *What started the argument* was Patokallio’s 2023 investigation into archive.today’s ownership, which later coverage of the FBI subpoena amplified. - The *direct trigger for Wikipedia’s action* was the combination of: - The *DDoS* launched from archive.today against his blog. - The *threats* (AI porn, harassment) against him. - Evidence that the *archive’s content had been tampered with*, violating Wikipedia’s trust in it as a citation source.【turn4fetch0】【turn9find1】

shit, let's just go outside

furthermore Sam Altman desperately needs something cool again at OpenAI