> Here’s what’s going on. The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine has been hit by waves of high-volume automated traffic, and we’ve put protections in place to keep the service running.
I'm pretty certain this is scrapers that are trying to workaround blocks on accessing original sites by hitting the Wayback Machine copy instead. Appalling behavior.
In addition to the load it puts on this vital non-profit piece of Internet infrastructure, we've also already seen some sites opt out of the Wayback Machine to prevent their content from being scraped via this alternative route.
I run some small websites, including a tiny forum that’s been a goldmine for scrapers. I had to significantly tweak some firewall rules and configuration after scrapers behind residential proxies suddenly accounted for over 99% of requests.
However, I also relaxed rules for automated traffic that was well-behaved, and I went out of my way to ensure that the Wayback Machine was able to hit everything. I should kick a small donation their way. They provide an incredibly valuable service and I love the benefit that I get from them just for personal side projects.
How do you separate the Wayback Machine from malicious bots that pretend to be the Wayback Machine? Are you whitelisting their IP blocks?
Because I get a ton of scraper requests that forge Googlebot, Bing, and Yandex user-agents that are totally not coming from their IP ranges. In fact, sometimes they all come from the same IP...
Sorry, not following. I thought the user agent is a string that the caller can set to anything. There is no immediate, reliable way to tell whether the string is correct.
Yeah, a real browser would produce certain patterns and never certain others. So in some cases one could clearly say it's not a human using a browser. But a scraper could also make efforts to mimic human browsing. Mostly the frequency of requests can tell with high probability tell it's not human. But such algorithms might occasionally give false positives for real users, exactly like it has obviously happened for the archive.
What google service are you referring to? Not sure whether the archove uses any of Google's tracking. I have pretty strong blocking of trackers and ads. But the archive works for me.
Google's scraper bot at least used to be behind IPs that you could identify via reverse-then-forward DNS. Not sure if that is still up to date, though.
Yep, verifying the IPs is still the way to go. You often see websites that do it wrong when you set your user agent to Google Bot and they give you a different version of the page without validating that.
Correct: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.
They bulk replaced one string (a name) with another one across many archived pages, and added malicious code to all archive pages that would rapidly send requests to gyrovague.com in an attempt to DDOS them.
Just out of curiosity, how do we know that what is in the Wikipedia comments is accurate? I have no skin in the game. I was just wondering. Anybody can post anything on Wikipedia comments. I find it odd that Ars Technica would use that as a source. Maybe it's fine for gossip and speculation but it shouldn't be in Ars Technica then.
And you obviously have no reason to believe me, but I was following this when it was happening at the start of this year and can confirm that the DDoS script and archive text replacements really did happen.
Convenience as a higher order motivator than disgust at the bad behavior of archive.{today,ph,...} mentioned elsewhere, I think is the point of the comment to which you replied.
That isn’t the point being discussed. The point being discussed is that it’s bad form to abuse a service (archive.org) that is provided for free, for the public good in order to run commercial scraping operations.
Yes, arguably, and for reasons I already gave. I’d genuinely spend a bit more time reading and thinking rather than replying. Your replies are pithy but you’re missing details and frankly making cognitive mistakes. (Apologies if this seems harsh, I don’t mean it as an insult, but this thread has blown up entirely unnecessarily- and yes, I know I’m not helping either!)
It is different, precisely because the end result is not the same - one broadly benefits the public while the other doesn't.
Substitute almost any disruptive public service to see the issue with your line of reasoning. For example - you seem to think that [ bulldozing private property ] to "construct an emergency fire break" is somehow different than [ bulldozing private property ] for any other reason.
Never mind that the sort of scraping being objected to is actually harmful to service health while what the wayback machine does is almost entirely unnoticeable.
The minuscule traffic generated by the wayback machine, which serves to preserve the content for years to come, is completely incomparable to the scrapers that hammer every single href linked on a website.
You missed the XCancel flamewar yesterday. The consensus is we should be allowed to scrape data and bypass login walls if we dislike the site owner, or feel we are owed free access by arbitrary criteria, it's sort of an unwritten rule. Unless of course it's Google or Meta properties we're talking about because that might impact RSUs.
They are 2 different services, run by different people, one goes out of their way to bypass paywalls while the other doesn't, one is banned by Wikipedia and the other isn't, etc.
I think it's a distinction worth making.
Not to mention that the Wayback Machine itself isn't exactly a good tool to bypass paywalls as most paid sites don't let them archive paywalled content anyway.
Given that the root of the discussion is about Internet Archive being hit with huge traffic and not the functionalities provided by Wayback Machine, it very much is a distinction with a difference.
Internet Archive's traffic may not matter to you, but that's the main topic of this discussion, regardless of what you care or use website archival tools for.
Yeah, you're mistaken. One archives web pages, the other maintains a list of paid-access accounts and fetches information from behind paywalls as a service.
archive.org is the more straight-laced archive that doesn't circumvent sites that try to block it, and removes content they deem 'problematic' even if not illegal or requested by the site owner.
Meanwhile archive.today/ph/is/etc is the guerrilla alternative run by a die-hard datahoarder that seeks to archive the information itself, bypassing whatever blockers/login pages/whathaveyou to achieve the result.
It's nice to have both options. When I archive a site, I usually use both for added resiliency.
We used to always "scrape" the wayback machine for any sort of news article we actually paid to consume. I was absolutely shocked by major news sites making very important edits to an article without any sort of editorial notice!
Sadly this sort of thing is probably not really possible anymore, but I can't really blame anyone for making this sort of decision. I can't imagine how much more traffic they get now vs 2021 when we were doing this.
I was thinking the same thing... paid access for high volume users or scrapers could actually help fund the non-profit. Maybe let website owners decide which scrapers are allowed to use their content, or allow them to get paid for use of it. If news and other sites were getting paid, maybe they could go back to optimizing for good content instead of clicks.
I think that would get into murky water really quickly with the rights holders (/content creators) not exactly being thrilled the Wayback Machine is essentially monetizing their IP behind their back.
Interesting, in all the years I have never noticed that IP has 2 meanings (well probably more...) Yeah, I am an engineer and usually try to avoid the legal BS. Although I hate that AI has made stealing legal if you are big enough.
But anyway, no, I wouldn't keep finding reasons. I donate to them every year already. Somebody asked if I would be willing to pay and my answer was "yes, but".
It would need to be improved because certain aspects of it suck right now, not only the error this post is about. They only need go as far as their forums and github repos to see the community feedback.
Not at all. I donate to Internet Archive, but we're talking here about paying for unobstructed access to but one part of their service: Wayback Machine. Two different things.
I mean we already paid for the article from the source itself. I guess I'd expect a better "diff" source from them, but if they dont even update the article itself, i guess i wouldn't expect a paid service to have those updates either?
ah, i think i misunderstood your original post. if you mean the wayback-machine/arkive, then I suspect it'd be hard to justify? You are essentially paying a third-party source to validate that diffs didn't go through on the source material.
with llms, at some point it probably becomes easier to use your paid api connection to manage your own cached version yourself?
Unfortunately I sometimes have to browbeat Claude into acting like an agent of the user is supposed to. Usually it works, though last time it refused to recognize my moral argument (on the grounds that it's not bound to my interests exclusively and needs to protect the interests of its maker too).
Do you think there should be a way for a site to tell an agent it isn't allowed access? I'm not sure where I land on this exactly tbh, so no judgment cast.
Has it been settled whether robots.txt applies to user-driven chat sessions and if things like the crawl delay should be applied to say an end-user, an ip address, a harness provider, etc? My understanding is robots.txt is more for training exclusions, but less so for agent work.
robots.txt was only intended to help search index crawlers not get stuck in endless crawl loops for badly designed websites.
What you suggest is explicitly not a purpose of robots.txt per RFC9309[1]:
"These rules are not a form of access authorization."
HTTP 429 and HTTP 403 are what servers are meant to return to clients to slow them down or tell them to stop doing something without having first gained authorisation.
robots.txt applies (or should, in my opinion) to anything that automatically follows a link. Basically any software that is not a human-controlled web browser or single-shot curl command. Everything else: robot.
AI bros think they should be exempt from robots.txt. Administrators of big services beg to differ. No solid consensus has arisen. I bet it's gonna take a lawsuit or two to see how it shakes out.
wget ignores robots.txt outside of recursive mode. I think it's correct to do so, and I think an AI loading a handful of pages in response to a command should be about the same.
If a new directive was introduced that allows for an explicit setting in robots.txt, do you think the bros would follow it anyway? Something like `ALLOW AGENTS` or `DISALLOW AGENTS`
I suspect most people would be ok with this if they could only do it at the rate and frequency you yourself can do it. The problem is largely one of scale.
e.g. a prompt of "fetch <article URL> and summarise it for me" is very close to what a human would be doing with a web browser, and doesn't seem to involve any kind of scaling issue.
Sure, but all the time I'll ask Claude a question, and then I'll see it fetch 5-10 different URLs to come up with answer. I certainly would not be fetching those URLs at that rate if I were doing it myself. I would probably be visiting those pages, one by one, over the span of 10-20 minutes.
As would I when researching anything myself. I'll do a web search, and if I see some highly relevant results, I'll middle-click them so they open in a new tab, and I'll easily do 5+ at a time, before then going to read the first one.
Same with browsing HN, btw. I have a row of 9 HN tabs open, all of them opened at the same time, as I scrolled the front page and middle-clicked on thread link to anything interesting.
It’s easy to write instructions that have the agent check once every fifteen minutes, or even once an hour, in perpetuity, which never sleeps. And people do write such instructions. A human can’t do that by hand for very long.
The problem is that it is hard to distinguish your one off (which seems perfectly fine) from the tidal wave of bad actors.
Not to mention that it solves none of the rate issues. If the scrapers are hitting your site 10,000 times a day, adding markdown isn’t going to change that at all.
Technically, even your browser is an agent. It says it in the HTTP: User-Agent. So is cURL. Every application the user runs is acting on the user's behalf.
I've personally been using the Wayback Machine more often because I increasingly find myself being blocked from websites who are trying to keep out scrapers even though I'm just a regular person with JS disabled (along with a bunch of other stuff)
Sites are getting too overzealous with blocking IMO. I got blocked for several hours by huggingface simply because my download didn't complete and I had to retry. It gave me error 429, suggested I login, and the login page wouldn't load because error 429.
A popular tech news site blocked my phone because of Apple Private Relay. That didn't last long because their traffic fell off a cliff when that happened.
Many sites are throwing more captchas at the problem, without understanding that captchas don't actually help with LLMs, they just hinder normal users and primitive scripts. LLMs solve captchas just fine.
Some big sites have put up improved paywalls. I'm fine with subscribing to a quality site, however, WSJ and all the other big media sites routinely spit out regurgitated garbage that can be had for free elsewhere (and due to political spin, their garbage is less valuable than the free versions of said content).
Some folks are declaring the internet dead. I wouldn't go that far, however, I will say that a reckoning is going to happen, especially when advertisers figure out that most ads served on basically every website are no longer viewed by humans.
Nearly every time a link is posted to HN to a site behind some form of wall, a high voted comment on the post will be a link to an archive site bypassing the owners wall. Bot owners are not the only ones routinely circumventing the choices of content owners.
Once upon a time some people explored backing up the Internet Archive.
However, that experiment ended. They mention there were some learnings and they then say:
> The Internet Archive continues to explore methods and code to decentralize the collection, to have a mirror running in various ways - these include IPFS, FileCoin, and others. The INTERNETARCHIVE.BAK project also added general mirroring and tracking code to a number of projects that are still in use.
I would really like to know if any sort of thing like that is still ongoing and if it’s accessible to people in general. Would be nice to mirror some data from IA to my local drives, for example via BitTorrent or IPFS, to have it for offline exploration and personal archive.
I know that individual items have torrents. And I’ve downloaded a few that way but always it ends up only using the “web seed” (i.e. the BitTorrent client is retrieving the files from IA via HTTP) because there are no one seeding some random single item I found. Plus, those torrents are unreliable sometimes because they include meta data files that were since updated but the torrent was not updated and so the web seed is giving the updated files that don’t match what the torrent says their hashes should be. So then you have to jump through some extra hoops to fix that and then resume the download, and all the while the HTTP connections to IA servers time out because their servers are overloaded. So when I say I wonder about possibilities of using BitTorrent I mean to retrieve whole collections of many items instead of individual ones, and with actual other peers instead of just having it put load on IA HTTP servers.
The internet archive's decentralization project is paused as far as I can tell. They have too many things to do and too little funding to do it all. Their current strategy seems to be establishing new legal entities outside the us like in Canada and Switzerland, but they don't accept web traffic even though they hold full copies of the internet archive. There used to be a full copy in Egypt at the library of Alexandria and another in the Netherlands. Not sure if they're still in use, but they did accept web traffic. They hold a decentralized web camp every year in the middle of a forest
The Internet Archive's torrents are a sick joke. I've yet to find one that actually manages to complete. They always get stuck at 90-something percent but that final blocks always fail verification and get retried, fail, and the process repeats forever. Because they're web seeds they're hitting IA infrastructure and not offloading to a real swarm. So their broken torrents are just screwing themselves.
What sites would they be targeting? Generic "just give me anything"? Whenever I check regular sites on IA, the coverage is spotty -- they'll have the homepage and a few important pages, but it quickly fizzles out.
Very understandable, you can't store all 15000 pages of any random website and update them etc etc, but that makes them pretty useless for indirect scraping because you usually don't want a tiny taste, you want everything.
> I'm pretty certain this is scrapers that are trying to workaround blocks on accessing original sites by hitting the Wayback Machine copy instead. Appalling behavior.
Appalling, yes. But also expected. I'm surprised they haven't been the target of scrapers for years. But sites putting their content behind login walls and other anti-bot mechanisms has certainly exacerbated this. But again, this isn't at all a surprising progression.
> we've also already seen some sites opt out of the Wayback Machine to prevent their content from being scraped via this alternative route.
To be fair, another big motivation was likely users on sites like HN using archive.org (and similar sites) to get around their paywalls. In fact, I'd be surprised if this wasn't a big motivator.
Again, it sucks, but it's not at all surprising to see it progress like this. I wouldn't be surprised to see similar blocks on other archive sites eventually.
It is. They will most likely eventually need to move to a walled model for Wayback due to scraper aggressiveness (like Reddit deprecating anonymous old.reddit.com), or behind Cloudflare for aggressive bot and scraping protection. Hard to defend against abuse of a public resource when its intent is public access with as little restriction as possible.
As someone who operates a large non-profit public data driven website, I have some VERY strong feelings about scrapers. We looked into various commercial solutions (Datadome, HUMAN) and based on our traffic estimates from logs we'd be looking at at least 250k/yr for bot mitigation. Anubis is offering a temporary reprieve, but after reading the recent kernel.org article [0] it's increasingly clear that this is a temporary bandaid.
The cheapest solution is to require a login and rate limit by API key. I also have strong feelings about the tragedy of the commons.
Nah, there's actual value in hitting historical versions and with agents the gap between "how long has this product been offered by this company" and "I should go to wayback machine and do a binary search to find the earliest snapshot that contains this product offering " has closed.
Mad props to the people at the Archive. You are the heros we need in a formerly open internet that is surrendering to evil big corps and closing down free access.
The Internet Archive is in a really bad spot being attacked from multiple sides at once. But — while service has not been consistent — they have maintained open access. I can still access anonymously from Tor without Cloudflare or some other centralized gatekeeper showing me the middle finger.
If you got some money to spare, consider donating to them. They need it.
I'm expecting a full court legal attack on Wikipedia at some point. It's just too good for information, and companies would rather you use their chatbot to regurgitate that info now that they have their own copies. Google was already built to pretend as if they had some magic system giving you "Answers" that were 95% just the text of the infobox they used to have for wikipedia on the side.
It's going to suddenly be extremely valuable that wikipedia didn't settle for having a small rainy day fund and instead ceaselessly grabbed every fucking donation they could for two decades so they can fight such a legal battle.
I don't think there's much grounds for a serious legal attack at this point, and also it would look so horrible from a PR standpoint no non-desperate would dare it. Anyway, google has been steering enough traffic away, now that its AI jumps in with an answer and the wikipedia link which 99% of the response is based on is always hidden with a bunch of other overlaid icons. Google has surely managed to kill off a bunch of reddit and stackoverflow traffic with this trick.
Unrelated, but this week I've been on a memory binge with the Wayback Machine, trying to find old content of mine from the early 2000s. Took me a while but I've finally put together a good bit of info about myself at the time that I'd completely forgotten, and it's all thanks to the Internet Archive storing my little gaming review website from when I was 16. I could barely remember any of the other stuff, it's been genuinely surprising figuring out what I'd forgotten. I couldn't even remember most domains I owned aside from one, which I used as the starting point.
Still can't remember what my Tripod site address was, but that might be lost to time.
I've not been able to access web.archive.org from my work computer - I always get the 429 error.
But I then pull out my phone and can access it just fine. All along I was assuming my company was blocking it. Still weird that it happens every time from my work PC and never from my home one.
I assume that's because the IP range of your company network overlaps with a range used by some scrapers, and if it doesn't happen on your phone even in the corporate network, then IA probably checks some extra signals like the user agent in addition to the IP
Are there any decent/reputable residential proxy companies? I’m pretty sure I’ll end up needing one occasionally, for those days when my residential IP has a poor reputation score.
There are definitely factors beyond IP being used. A week ago I found that all requests from Chrome-like browsers got a 429 across more than a half dozen networks and several machines, while Firefox reliably worked. I assume this was an overzealous policy on UAs.
You should file a support ticket with your manager and the IT security or support desk. Show them the evidence of 429s that are blocking your assigned tasks during working hours. Also include the screenshots and files that you downloaded on your personal device in order to access your work-related materials. Be sure and thank them for adequately configuring the MDM on your personal mobile device so that you could do these work-related tasks. You should definitely also file an expense report to request reimbursement of your personal mobile bill, any data charges incurred, and the hours of networking or collaborating with external colleagues, while you were working on these work-related projects with your personal device.
Your workplace is probably redirecting traffic through a datacenter IP range. Especially if they have their own datacenters like google, microsoft, oracle, amazon, etc.
Try making a vpn via digital ocean for example and you'll see similar patterns.
They seem to be aggressively blocking IPv6 source IPs. I ran into this problem over the past month traveling. I got nothing but 429 errors until I switched on my VPN (which is IPv4 only) and magically the Wayback machine worked again. The lack of transparency on the part of IA is very frustrating.
I recently remembered a wonderful comic blog from 2010’s that is not online anymore. It was a sonderful Finnish LGTG-thened comic blog that I use to read, then forgot completely until few weeks ago. WM had it stored of course, so I could read through this amazing piece of internet art again.
I really so through some money their way, they do wonderful work.
The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine has been hit by waves of high-volume automated traffic
Thank you for not immediately blaming it on "AI bots". I suspect there's some entity manufacturing consent for strong identity/age verification/sanctioned-browser-OS "walled garden" Internet, and these random DDoSes are part of that.
I knew something was up when a few alternative YouTube front-ends I use suddenly put up the 'nubis and complained about the high volumes of traffic they were getting flooded with; of course someone actually going after that data would be aiming their "AI bots" at YouTube directly instead of trying to suck it through a tiny little-known proxy-site, so it really strained the credibility of the argument.
I really appreciate the Archive team's efforts to make the Wayback Machine more responsive, and have donated a few times to support them.
Unfortunately, the restrictions have been way too strict for the last few months: from my residential IP, simply moving the mouse on the calendar for a specific URL is enough to get stuck on 429 error messages for a while; and from corporate ISPs (for example, on airport WiFi), you often can't access the WM at all. I hope they'll find a way to relax those.
It's shame that the AI arms race causes such collateral damage. Free resources were always exploited, but the stakes ($T) and capabilities around AI allow unprecedented abuse. I wish we could go back... :/
I really don't see any solution to this; the scrapers probably wouldn't even mind destroying sources like IA too much, which would leave them as the only "authorative" source of knowledge in the end. Best way is likely regulation incl. hefty (!) fines, but politics are too slow and too fragmented to be effective. So... Enjoy it while it lasts, I guess.
I'm a little more skeptical that this is "AI is big so it is worse" issue. Yes, AI is big in scale, but this has been the case for almost every popular free service. They either start:
- charging (news / journalist services)
- gate-keeping (X forcing log-ins)
- enshittifying (lots of ads and degraded service)
The fact that the way back machine is incredibly useful but most people didn't know about it or use it very much doesn't change the fact that it has basically become very popular... only with LLM agents rather than humans. Ads alone aren't enough to support human traffic for many sites with human traffic.
> We’re getting better at telling abusive bots apart from the people who depend on the Wayback Machine every day. If you think you were blocked in error, email info@archive.org with your operating system, browser, and IP address, and we’ll look into it.
Is it established that the scraping scourge of late is primarily driven by AI companies? Anyone aware of any relevant studies?
Beginning to think that the difficulty to browse most websites nowadays due to throttling, is yet another negative externality of AI development that society is forced to bear.
People will just bring their bots over and you'll be back to square one. Bots scraping existed before LLM companies decided to go nutso on the internet.
I wonder why doesn’t the Internet Archive require logging-in prior to accessing the Wayback Machine. It would probably help them distinguish humans from bots, at a very little cost to humans.
> If its the difference between the information being available at all
That's the point. The solution should avoid information not being available. Requiring login will incentivize bots to create spam accounts and move the battle to a new frontier, hurting real people in the process.
The anti virus industry needs to crack down on crawler and proxy malware, plus ISPs FINALLY need to replace CGNATs with iov6 to stop crawlers banning everyone behind a NAT.
Presumedly they collect that, but the vast majority of blocks are correct and not errors. This info allows them to look up the user’s request to label it as legitimate.
I’ve read a few different experiences with hosts having had success with Anubis to cut down on excessive scraping. One that comes to mind is the Dolphin project.[1]
I’ve read a few of those threads, but often it’s people at cross-purposes with the goals of Anubis. Is there a chance you could clarify the “not working” bit?
Basically, the cost of an optimized solution is orders of magnitude lower than the cost of an in-browser solution. Anyone dedicated can easily afford to solve workloads higher than your users will tolerate.
You might stop casual scrapers, but you're not going to stop someone who cares. AI scraping companies care.
That's not even the fundamental problem. Even if the payload runs optimally in the browser, the cost of CPU is so small that it's basically irrelevant.
If you waste your user's time with something that would take a full minute to run on a datacenter core, you're costing the scraper something like $0.000005: 360 W TDP on a 128-core EPYC 9754 * $0.10/kWh. In reality, it'll be substantially less than that, because CPUs don't use 0W at idle.
The only way this would make any sense is if there were many more scrapers than users and scrapers cared more about latency than real users, but that's the exact opposite of reality. The entire endeavor is so fundamentally misguided that it almost seems like a psyop.
unrelated: if a website gets hit with "This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine", do existing snapshots get purged or may they still be preserved somewhere?
Yes. It's impossible to tell which because the split is residential proxies, dataset curators, and AI companies all being separate actors. However I fucking guarantee you it's out there and people are too cowardly to be honest about it so they don't get sued out of existence.
Not while the new dukes of the internet wielding massive armies of hijacked smart TVs have a better time browsing the web than I have; as a mere peasant with just a few IP addresses. There would be no reason to sign up and pay up for bulk access, unless open access is shut down.
There was a feature on Amazon Web Services for a while, and I wish it was still there...
Downloader pays.
I make some content and upload it. When you want to download it, you pay Amazon the egress fees. And maybe I get to charge just a bit more, to help me with the Ingress, storage, content creation, etc.
I mean, I know that there's going to be problems with rate limiting, etc. And yes, we have those problems with LLM tokens today. But this just feels like such a useful thing that it baffles me that it doesn't exist already.
There is a HN article on abusive AI crawlers on the front page almost every week, but we rarely talk about the path forward. Web scraping has been around for as long as the internet, and it was fine because we had established best practices (rate limiting, self-identification, robots.txt, etc.) that the industry agreed upon. Now we have AI labs and their crawlers that don't care about any of this gentlemen's agreement.
So how do we go from here? Is adding more difficult Anubis and Cloudflare bot protection really the solution? How many millions of human hours and billions in infra costs are we willing to spend on this arms race?
Some approaches that I think are promising:
- A robots.txt V2[0] as a standard way for website owners to state how bots and AI crawlers can use their online content and where to go (e.g. distinguish search from AI training use cases, point to a downloadable file instead of crawling everything, etc.).
- Something like Web Bot Auth[1] as a non-centralized standard for self-identifying bots and agents cryptographically. This would allow websites to allow or deny bots very precisely.
- Find some new way for Cloudflare to acquire paying customers. If their business did not depend on the status quo, they would be exceptionally well positioned to roll out the technical & organizational frameworks that that make massive botnets a thing of the past.
Yeah it’s kinda crazy to me that what was once a back alley python script is now accepted as ‘fine, free for all’. The new era of bros really are smth else.
They wouldn't be paying for the content, just the bandwidth. Like buying a linux OS on a CD ROM was about the cost of media not profiting off of the software.
I'd have a lot less of a problem with AI if everything that went into their training was public domain and made easily available to anyone for any use. It'd feel less like AI companies were just stealing the work of others and charging for it.
* If you train AI on it, you have to afford public access to it.
* Nobody can exact violence against anybody else in response to that person providing public access to any data anymore (ie, all bytestrings are public domain).
That's the world I'd like to try in the coming years.
Why not just offer a paid endpoint for the crawlers? It's not like the demand is going to go away anytime soon.
It serves nobody except CloudFlare and hardware companies when one side set up blockers and the other side spend money putting VPN SDKs in consumer TVs.
I am also curious how the (Russian?) paywall bypass mirror archive.is is doing given that they are probably subject to similar amounts of traffic.
> It serves nobody except CloudFlare and hardware companies when one side set up blockers and the other side spend money putting VPN SDKs in consumer TVs
The problem with this perspective is that it ignores the victimization which is happening to all sorts of sites right now.
On one hand, you have content owners/suppliers which are trying to place restrictions on how much free bulk use is allowed.
When scrapers go to exotic lengths to evade the blocks, eg by using thousands of ephemeral IP addresses to collect an entire corpus, saying stuff like that makes it sound like it's all a wash.
"Oh, what a silly situation... How did we ever end up like this? It's not good for anyone ..."
No, there is a victim trying to defend themselves from rampant theft of resources, and a corporate asshole which doesn't care about the effects of their actions.
Micropayments would solve so many Internet problems. It's not too late to adopt.
Content creators could charge by page instead of depending on malware/ad/surveillance revenue. Spam is cut if there's a charge per mail. Scraping abuse goes away, along with a bunch of DDOS garbage.
The impact is a few cents per page or mail, negligible for a human. But if you're consuming a trillion pages per day, you'd reconsider.
Micropayments would solve all the problems except for the problem that people absolutely loathe micropayments. Like, vein-popping furiously hate them.
Whenever the topic of micropayments for internet content comes up, a bunch of people start talking about payment processors and their floor on prices, and so on. That's not wrong, but it can be designed around and I think it's a scapegoat to avoid confronting the fact that users despise micropayments and we'd rather blame credit card companies for the lack of adoption.
Micropayments would solve so many problems for the internet. And, cryptocurrencies would solve so many problems for micropayments. But, it's a non-starter because any proposal gets flooded with people popping veins about how crypto can't solve anything.
It doesn't need to be crypto, or payment processor based.
My ideal experience would be I load $20 into the browser somewhere like a wallet in one block (that could be a payment processor step). If I visit a participating page, it decrements my wallet $.01 or whatever.
The downside is the possibility of abuse and tracking by governments, which would have to be handled at the source, not the symptom.
My guess? Because even with a paid endpoint, the type of unscrupulous yahoo that is DDOSing IA today would probably still abuse the free endpoints because they can. The revenue that might come from a paid endpoint could help to scale up, but with how slow IA usually seems, I suspect there is an upper limit to how much traffic they can serve without a LOT more revenue.
This is a major "this is why we can't have nice things" situation in my opinion. IA is one of the most valuable gems of the Internet. The only thing that even comes close to preserving our shared history. The damage being caused (both by the effective DDOSing and by the knock-on impact that abuse has in encouraging publishers to remove their content from the archive) is incredibly serious.
IA might be large enough to earn consideration, but generally scrapers just don't care about being good citizens. I work in the GLAM space and we offer OAI-PMH interfaces for the harvesting of our collections data - which doesn't stop companies from preferring to scrape our website for worse (less complete, less structured, less standardized) data instead.
> Why not just offer a paid endpoint for the crawlers?
Because then you're definitely violating US copyright law. There are four prongs of fair use analysis, and one of them is the "nature of the use." In this case, you'd be turning into a commercial use.
What if you're not charging for the content, but as compensation for the network bandwidth / server resources consumed by serving that content? The idea isn't to profit from content (the IA is a nonprofit anyway), just to allow the IA to continue to serve its purpose as an archive of public data without being overwhelmed by bots.
Which AI company is selling access to reliable verbatim copies of websites? I don't mean "it may regurgitate a paragraph", but as a reliable service where you can repeatably get website content snapshots to a reliability level that makes such a use case viable?
Using the information for training purposes is not the same thing. Not legally the same and otherwise.
Internet Archive was almost destroyed by a copyright lawsuit from book publishers within the last few years. I expect they aren't excited to take on any additional risk of similar lawsuits right now.
They need access to sites to archive them. It's already hard to do it as it is, imagine if they start selling access to content. They'd be shooting themselves on the foot, independently of what the law says.
major [citation needed] on that. There are very limited exceptions to the massive power of copyright -- and they're mainly granted to libraries in the form of narrow waivers. And just the cost of fighting the most powerful copyright holders can bankrupt you -- especially if you're a relatively modestly-funded nonprofit.
I've been getting this error a lot. Asking users to email them with details of their OS, browser, IP address is just crazy. Their support is supposedly already swamped and they are asking for more!? Changes made by IA shouldn't become my responsibility.
Imagine if Apple or Microsoft introduced a bug and said, ah yes we know about it we did that on purpose and we know it affects a huge number of people, if each of you could email us these details that'd be great. It's just such an insane request.
IA have broken it and have no real idea how to make it better so they are going to whitelist IPs or browsers or entire operating systems? Wild.
What is 'insane' here is the shear level of entitlement displayed here, including lumping a niche, free, volunteer supported service in with billion dollar, for profit corporations and demanding they pander to your inflated expectations.
It doesn't matter who or what the service is, how much they have, or whatever else. They created a problem and now users have to pay for the inconvenience by emailing(!) specific details that could be captured automatically through web logs: OS, browser, IP address. It's ridiculous.
> details that could be captured automatically through web logs
You can't be serious. Are you ok? The entire point is that they're trying to tell bots and humans apart. They're trusting email (and how you write your email) as a good signal that you're human. What are you talking about getting it from the log? The point is to correlate. How do you expect them to know who you are in the log unless you give them that info?
> They created a problem
No, they're dealing with a problem, and compromised that some human users may unfortunately get blocked.
> and now users have to pay for the inconvenience
You don't have to anything. You can just not use them. They don't owe you their service.
Somebody is handing out free apple lollipops, they ran out, compromised on giving grape ones, and now you're complaining you're being forced to eat a grape one and you don't like grape. Don't eat it.
No, it's more like you're requesting something from them and they're telling you they may need some technical, non-personally-identifiable info from you to fulfill your request.
Who do you think the Internet Archive is? They are not Google, they have very low funding, very high expenses and are constantly under legal pressure.
The fact you can even access the Internet Archive for free is a result of tens thousands of human hours striving for one goal. Digital Preservation. If you rely so much on IA, you should consider donating.
Data analysis would be a good start, better blocking heuristics, an off-the-shelf solution used by other organisations that don't have this problem, etc.
OTOH I do appreciate their openness. It beats those times when I try visiting a site, only to get a cryptic 403 error or similar and no suggestion the site would like to hear from me.
> Here’s what’s going on. The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine has been hit by waves of high-volume automated traffic, and we’ve put protections in place to keep the service running.
I'm pretty certain this is scrapers that are trying to workaround blocks on accessing original sites by hitting the Wayback Machine copy instead. Appalling behavior.
In addition to the load it puts on this vital non-profit piece of Internet infrastructure, we've also already seen some sites opt out of the Wayback Machine to prevent their content from being scraped via this alternative route.
I run some small websites, including a tiny forum that’s been a goldmine for scrapers. I had to significantly tweak some firewall rules and configuration after scrapers behind residential proxies suddenly accounted for over 99% of requests.
However, I also relaxed rules for automated traffic that was well-behaved, and I went out of my way to ensure that the Wayback Machine was able to hit everything. I should kick a small donation their way. They provide an incredibly valuable service and I love the benefit that I get from them just for personal side projects.
How do you separate the Wayback Machine from malicious bots that pretend to be the Wayback Machine? Are you whitelisting their IP blocks?
Because I get a ton of scraper requests that forge Googlebot, Bing, and Yandex user-agents that are totally not coming from their IP ranges. In fact, sometimes they all come from the same IP...
They have their own ASN, which I’ve explicitly allowed requests from.
https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/7941
TIL they have their own ASN. This is helpful, thanks.
I thought at least google (and possibly others) provided a way to verify the user agent?
Sorry, not following. I thought the user agent is a string that the caller can set to anything. There is no immediate, reliable way to tell whether the string is correct.
Yeah, a real browser would produce certain patterns and never certain others. So in some cases one could clearly say it's not a human using a browser. But a scraper could also make efforts to mimic human browsing. Mostly the frequency of requests can tell with high probability tell it's not human. But such algorithms might occasionally give false positives for real users, exactly like it has obviously happened for the archive.
What google service are you referring to? Not sure whether the archove uses any of Google's tracking. I have pretty strong blocking of trackers and ads. But the archive works for me.
Google's scraper bot at least used to be behind IPs that you could identify via reverse-then-forward DNS. Not sure if that is still up to date, though.
https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2006/09/how-to-ver...
Yep, verifying the IPs is still the way to go. You often see websites that do it wrong when you set your user agent to Google Bot and they give you a different version of the page without validating that.
Kudos on that. I don't know what site you're hosting, but I appreciate knowing that it is there
This is the way to go! Cut the cat and mouse, win win ish.
This is absolutely something that's happening. There are even paid scraper API's that offer "Wayback Machine fallback" as a feature.
It's an open secret that you can often circumvent paywalls by searching Wayback.
One site was doing that which archive in their name but wasn't apart of archive.org
archive.is or archive.today?
Why being shy in the era of stealing AI?
archive.today uses clients to perform DDoS, I would not recommend using their site.
Let's all just believe this baseless assertion shall we.
You have to include more than that, this isn't common knowledge.
Sure it is! This has been going on for years and global attention was gained at the beginning of this one.[0]
Wikipedia deprecates Archive.today, starts removing archive links (arstechnica.com) 616 points by nobody9999 6 months ago | hide | past | favorite | 368 comments
0 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006
It's been posted multiple times of the last few months as they were removed from wikipedia and cloudflare. [1] [2] [3]
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46843805
2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006
3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47474255
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...> for those without a search engine.
Only some of them, it is not universal.
"often"
Every single paid article linked on HN has the way back machine link as the very first comment.
The links are usually to Archive.today (aka archive.ph and a bunch of other domains), not Wayback Machine (which is run by Internet Archive).
Correct: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.
> 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?
See
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-might-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...?
Besides tampering with content, the site was also using visitors to DDOS a blog that mentioned the owner of archive.today.
See the "Background" section of the Wikipedia RFC on banning archive.today links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment...
They bulk replaced one string (a name) with another one across many archived pages, and added malicious code to all archive pages that would rapidly send requests to gyrovague.com in an attempt to DDOS them.
Just out of curiosity, how do we know that what is in the Wikipedia comments is accurate? I have no skin in the game. I was just wondering. Anybody can post anything on Wikipedia comments. I find it odd that Ars Technica would use that as a source. Maybe it's fine for gossip and speculation but it shouldn't be in Ars Technica then.
There is a megalodon.jp archive of an archive.today page that shows the edits: https://megalodon.jp/2026-0219-1654-07/https://archive.ph:44...
There's also a bunch of previous hackernews discussions about it:
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47474255
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624740
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46843805
And you obviously have no reason to believe me, but I was following this when it was happening at the start of this year and can confirm that the DDoS script and archive text replacements really did happen.
Because a lot of us watched the drama unfold in real time.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
> 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.
Convenience as a higher order motivator than disgust at the bad behavior of archive.{today,ph,...} mentioned elsewhere, I think is the point of the comment to which you replied.
Ironically, your framing of the situation is infinitely more disingenuous to push a personal agenda versus anything the archive.today guy did.
ehh it's a distinction without a difference. The point is that alternative links are available to circumvent paid access for anyone that wants them.
That isn’t the point being discussed. The point being discussed is that it’s bad form to abuse a service (archive.org) that is provided for free, for the public good in order to run commercial scraping operations.
It's bad form to scrape the scrapers?
Yes, arguably, and for reasons I already gave. I’d genuinely spend a bit more time reading and thinking rather than replying. Your replies are pithy but you’re missing details and frankly making cognitive mistakes. (Apologies if this seems harsh, I don’t mean it as an insult, but this thread has blown up entirely unnecessarily- and yes, I know I’m not helping either!)
You seem to think that scraping websites "for the public good" is somehow different than scraping websites for any other reason.
The end result is exactly the same.
It is different, precisely because the end result is not the same - one broadly benefits the public while the other doesn't.
Substitute almost any disruptive public service to see the issue with your line of reasoning. For example - you seem to think that [ bulldozing private property ] to "construct an emergency fire break" is somehow different than [ bulldozing private property ] for any other reason.
Never mind that the sort of scraping being objected to is actually harmful to service health while what the wayback machine does is almost entirely unnoticeable.
The minuscule traffic generated by the wayback machine, which serves to preserve the content for years to come, is completely incomparable to the scrapers that hammer every single href linked on a website.
You missed the XCancel flamewar yesterday. The consensus is we should be allowed to scrape data and bypass login walls if we dislike the site owner, or feel we are owed free access by arbitrary criteria, it's sort of an unwritten rule. Unless of course it's Google or Meta properties we're talking about because that might impact RSUs.
They're different sites, with different goals, run by different people.
That provide the same functional service....
Hence, distinction without a difference.
They are 2 different services, run by different people, one goes out of their way to bypass paywalls while the other doesn't, one is banned by Wikipedia and the other isn't, etc.
I think it's a distinction worth making.
Not to mention that the Wayback Machine itself isn't exactly a good tool to bypass paywalls as most paid sites don't let them archive paywalled content anyway.
Given that the root of the discussion is about Internet Archive being hit with huge traffic and not the functionalities provided by Wayback Machine, it very much is a distinction with a difference.
Bot traffic or human traffic doesn't matter. The goal is to read websites without having your own access.
So Internet Archive, Archive.today, Archive.ph, etc. are all just means to the same end.
I suspect you may be conflating two different things.
Archive.org exists to preserve historical snapshots of the public parts of websites, and not to bypass subscriptions or pay walls.
Internet Archive's traffic may not matter to you, but that's the main topic of this discussion, regardless of what you care or use website archival tools for.
I think you have the wrong impression of the Internet Archive.
The internet archive is not designed to circumvent anything. It is not designed to "grant access without having your own access".
Yeah, you're mistaken. One archives web pages, the other maintains a list of paid-access accounts and fetches information from behind paywalls as a service.
Exactly this
archive.org is the more straight-laced archive that doesn't circumvent sites that try to block it, and removes content they deem 'problematic' even if not illegal or requested by the site owner.
Meanwhile archive.today/ph/is/etc is the guerrilla alternative run by a die-hard datahoarder that seeks to archive the information itself, bypassing whatever blockers/login pages/whathaveyou to achieve the result.
It's nice to have both options. When I archive a site, I usually use both for added resiliency.
We used to always "scrape" the wayback machine for any sort of news article we actually paid to consume. I was absolutely shocked by major news sites making very important edits to an article without any sort of editorial notice!
Sadly this sort of thing is probably not really possible anymore, but I can't really blame anyone for making this sort of decision. I can't imagine how much more traffic they get now vs 2021 when we were doing this.
What if they charged money? Is it something you'd pay for?
I was thinking the same thing... paid access for high volume users or scrapers could actually help fund the non-profit. Maybe let website owners decide which scrapers are allowed to use their content, or allow them to get paid for use of it. If news and other sites were getting paid, maybe they could go back to optimizing for good content instead of clicks.
They already provide this service at https://archive-it.org/archive-it/ though for some reason they don't seem to publicize it. Some info at https://help.archive.org/help/archive-it-information/ as well.
I think that would get into murky water really quickly with the rights holders (/content creators) not exactly being thrilled the Wayback Machine is essentially monetizing their IP behind their back.
Interesting, in all the years I have never noticed that IP has 2 meanings (well probably more...) Yeah, I am an engineer and usually try to avoid the legal BS. Although I hate that AI has made stealing legal if you are big enough.
If the money was guaranteed to only be used to pay the costs, there probably wouldn't be any problems
No. What happened to their remote library scheme? They did not make if for profit, but still...
I'd pay for it, but only if they implemented the changes the community of users have been requesting for years.
No matter what they did, you'd have a new excuse for why you won't pay.
Ah, the old ad hominem attack. How refreshing.
But anyway, no, I wouldn't keep finding reasons. I donate to them every year already. Somebody asked if I would be willing to pay and my answer was "yes, but".
It would need to be improved because certain aspects of it suck right now, not only the error this post is about. They only need go as far as their forums and github repos to see the community feedback.
Is it really an ad hom if he doesn't know the hom?
Their reply is 100% based on the content of your post.
If you make up a person to insult then yeah it's still ad hominem.
If you're donating, then you are evidently willing to pay without any "buts". So aren't you arguing against your own actions?
Not at all. I donate to Internet Archive, but we're talking here about paying for unobstructed access to but one part of their service: Wayback Machine. Two different things.
I mean we already paid for the article from the source itself. I guess I'd expect a better "diff" source from them, but if they dont even update the article itself, i guess i wouldn't expect a paid service to have those updates either?
ah, i think i misunderstood your original post. if you mean the wayback-machine/arkive, then I suspect it'd be hard to justify? You are essentially paying a third-party source to validate that diffs didn't go through on the source material.
with llms, at some point it probably becomes easier to use your paid api connection to manage your own cached version yourself?
I wonder if there would be concern on their part about appearing to be a company that was basically offering paywall circumvention as a product.
It wouldnt be a paywall, more like an option for companies to not pay scrappers. At least the payment deviates to the source.
Just yesterday from my one of my sessions with Sol:
> Hacker News and the Rails forum are blocking the text fetcher, so I'm using the browser workflow to inspect the pages directly
As it should.
Unfortunately I sometimes have to browbeat Claude into acting like an agent of the user is supposed to. Usually it works, though last time it refused to recognize my moral argument (on the grounds that it's not bound to my interests exclusively and needs to protect the interests of its maker too).
Do you think there should be a way for a site to tell an agent it isn't allowed access? I'm not sure where I land on this exactly tbh, so no judgment cast.
robots.txt?
Has it been settled whether robots.txt applies to user-driven chat sessions and if things like the crawl delay should be applied to say an end-user, an ip address, a harness provider, etc? My understanding is robots.txt is more for training exclusions, but less so for agent work.
robots.txt was only intended to help search index crawlers not get stuck in endless crawl loops for badly designed websites.
What you suggest is explicitly not a purpose of robots.txt per RFC9309[1]:
"These rules are not a form of access authorization."
HTTP 429 and HTTP 403 are what servers are meant to return to clients to slow them down or tell them to stop doing something without having first gained authorisation.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9309#section-1
robots.txt applies (or should, in my opinion) to anything that automatically follows a link. Basically any software that is not a human-controlled web browser or single-shot curl command. Everything else: robot.
AI bros think they should be exempt from robots.txt. Administrators of big services beg to differ. No solid consensus has arisen. I bet it's gonna take a lawsuit or two to see how it shakes out.
From the start, robots.txt has always been an indicator of a site's preference with no actual legal significance.
wget ignores robots.txt outside of recursive mode. I think it's correct to do so, and I think an AI loading a handful of pages in response to a command should be about the same.
If a new directive was introduced that allows for an explicit setting in robots.txt, do you think the bros would follow it anyway? Something like `ALLOW AGENTS` or `DISALLOW AGENTS`
I want agents to be able to act on my behalf, that’s the entire point. An agent should be able to do anything I can do sitting at my browser.
I suspect most people would be ok with this if they could only do it at the rate and frequency you yourself can do it. The problem is largely one of scale.
Is scale what we're discussing though?
e.g. a prompt of "fetch <article URL> and summarise it for me" is very close to what a human would be doing with a web browser, and doesn't seem to involve any kind of scaling issue.
Sure, but all the time I'll ask Claude a question, and then I'll see it fetch 5-10 different URLs to come up with answer. I certainly would not be fetching those URLs at that rate if I were doing it myself. I would probably be visiting those pages, one by one, over the span of 10-20 minutes.
That's the scale argument.
As would I when researching anything myself. I'll do a web search, and if I see some highly relevant results, I'll middle-click them so they open in a new tab, and I'll easily do 5+ at a time, before then going to read the first one.
Same with browsing HN, btw. I have a row of 9 HN tabs open, all of them opened at the same time, as I scrolled the front page and middle-clicked on thread link to anything interesting.
It’s easy to write instructions that have the agent check once every fifteen minutes, or even once an hour, in perpetuity, which never sleeps. And people do write such instructions. A human can’t do that by hand for very long.
The problem is that it is hard to distinguish your one off (which seems perfectly fine) from the tidal wave of bad actors.
Then make agent friendly content. Take the text and make a markdown version.
People doing this say it makes things worse because then the bots download both.
Not to mention that it solves none of the rate issues. If the scrapers are hitting your site 10,000 times a day, adding markdown isn’t going to change that at all.
Technically, even your browser is an agent. It says it in the HTTP: User-Agent. So is cURL. Every application the user runs is acting on the user's behalf.
Dunno why the downvotes. I feel that is reasonable as well. Owners that block that stuff are doing so only to their detriment.
I wonder if the entire internet is going to slowly move behind logins and allow lists for specific trusted crawlers at some point.
Open access doesn't seem sustainable.
But I might just grumpy about spending another hour this week adjusting rules to prevent bots.
Rather than logins or regional filters, how about they just be a content provider to local libraries and perhaps use an app like Libby.
I've personally been using the Wayback Machine more often because I increasingly find myself being blocked from websites who are trying to keep out scrapers even though I'm just a regular person with JS disabled (along with a bunch of other stuff)
Sites are getting too overzealous with blocking IMO. I got blocked for several hours by huggingface simply because my download didn't complete and I had to retry. It gave me error 429, suggested I login, and the login page wouldn't load because error 429.
A popular tech news site blocked my phone because of Apple Private Relay. That didn't last long because their traffic fell off a cliff when that happened.
Many sites are throwing more captchas at the problem, without understanding that captchas don't actually help with LLMs, they just hinder normal users and primitive scripts. LLMs solve captchas just fine.
Some big sites have put up improved paywalls. I'm fine with subscribing to a quality site, however, WSJ and all the other big media sites routinely spit out regurgitated garbage that can be had for free elsewhere (and due to political spin, their garbage is less valuable than the free versions of said content).
Some folks are declaring the internet dead. I wouldn't go that far, however, I will say that a reckoning is going to happen, especially when advertisers figure out that most ads served on basically every website are no longer viewed by humans.
Nearly every time a link is posted to HN to a site behind some form of wall, a high voted comment on the post will be a link to an archive site bypassing the owners wall. Bot owners are not the only ones routinely circumventing the choices of content owners.
Do they offer bulk torrent downloads as an alternative?
Once upon a time some people explored backing up the Internet Archive.
However, that experiment ended. They mention there were some learnings and they then say:
> The Internet Archive continues to explore methods and code to decentralize the collection, to have a mirror running in various ways - these include IPFS, FileCoin, and others. The INTERNETARCHIVE.BAK project also added general mirroring and tracking code to a number of projects that are still in use.
https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/INTERNETARCHIVE.BAK
I would really like to know if any sort of thing like that is still ongoing and if it’s accessible to people in general. Would be nice to mirror some data from IA to my local drives, for example via BitTorrent or IPFS, to have it for offline exploration and personal archive.
I know that individual items have torrents. And I’ve downloaded a few that way but always it ends up only using the “web seed” (i.e. the BitTorrent client is retrieving the files from IA via HTTP) because there are no one seeding some random single item I found. Plus, those torrents are unreliable sometimes because they include meta data files that were since updated but the torrent was not updated and so the web seed is giving the updated files that don’t match what the torrent says their hashes should be. So then you have to jump through some extra hoops to fix that and then resume the download, and all the while the HTTP connections to IA servers time out because their servers are overloaded. So when I say I wonder about possibilities of using BitTorrent I mean to retrieve whole collections of many items instead of individual ones, and with actual other peers instead of just having it put load on IA HTTP servers.
The internet archive's decentralization project is paused as far as I can tell. They have too many things to do and too little funding to do it all. Their current strategy seems to be establishing new legal entities outside the us like in Canada and Switzerland, but they don't accept web traffic even though they hold full copies of the internet archive. There used to be a full copy in Egypt at the library of Alexandria and another in the Netherlands. Not sure if they're still in use, but they did accept web traffic. They hold a decentralized web camp every year in the middle of a forest
The Internet Archive's torrents are a sick joke. I've yet to find one that actually manages to complete. They always get stuck at 90-something percent but that final blocks always fail verification and get retried, fail, and the process repeats forever. Because they're web seeds they're hitting IA infrastructure and not offloading to a real swarm. So their broken torrents are just screwing themselves.
I would love to be able to download every page of a given domain as an archive, and I'd pay to do this.
They provide a free cli tool to do this.
isn't that what wget -m does? what is there to pay for?
You'd pay the domain owner for it? How much?
You might be right but -- why would they have watied until these recent weeks?
What sites would they be targeting? Generic "just give me anything"? Whenever I check regular sites on IA, the coverage is spotty -- they'll have the homepage and a few important pages, but it quickly fizzles out.
Very understandable, you can't store all 15000 pages of any random website and update them etc etc, but that makes them pretty useless for indirect scraping because you usually don't want a tiny taste, you want everything.
> I'm pretty certain this is scrapers that are trying to workaround blocks on accessing original sites by hitting the Wayback Machine copy instead. Appalling behavior.
Appalling, yes. But also expected. I'm surprised they haven't been the target of scrapers for years. But sites putting their content behind login walls and other anti-bot mechanisms has certainly exacerbated this. But again, this isn't at all a surprising progression.
> we've also already seen some sites opt out of the Wayback Machine to prevent their content from being scraped via this alternative route.
To be fair, another big motivation was likely users on sites like HN using archive.org (and similar sites) to get around their paywalls. In fact, I'd be surprised if this wasn't a big motivator.
Again, it sucks, but it's not at all surprising to see it progress like this. I wouldn't be surprised to see similar blocks on other archive sites eventually.
My use of wayback has skyrocketed recently due to anti-bot measures.
I often cannot get past captchas, and archive.org is one of the fallbacks I try.
However, archive.is, etc are more reliable.
I wish the internet archive acted more like a library system, where multiple organizations could mirror the content.
They are a big single point of failure, and I’m shocked Trump/SCOTUS haven’t intentionally burnt the archives down yet.
Perhaps it would be sensible for the wayback machine to not show paywalled articles for the first, say, 3 months.
It is. They will most likely eventually need to move to a walled model for Wayback due to scraper aggressiveness (like Reddit deprecating anonymous old.reddit.com), or behind Cloudflare for aggressive bot and scraping protection. Hard to defend against abuse of a public resource when its intent is public access with as little restriction as possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
(no affiliation)
Reddit has no excuses for the anonymous old.reddit.com removal; they're simply greedy.
On the other hand, the Internet Archive is a non-profit offering a free public resource.
Examples provided as technical examples, strong feelings are out of scope for this thread.
As someone who operates a large non-profit public data driven website, I have some VERY strong feelings about scrapers. We looked into various commercial solutions (Datadome, HUMAN) and based on our traffic estimates from logs we'd be looking at at least 250k/yr for bot mitigation. Anubis is offering a temporary reprieve, but after reading the recent kernel.org article [0] it's increasingly clear that this is a temporary bandaid.
The cheapest solution is to require a login and rate limit by API key. I also have strong feelings about the tragedy of the commons.
[0] https://people.kernel.org/monsieuricon/creepy-crawlies
I say put your data up in torrents, host a few KB of plain HTML linking to them, and let decentralisation do the rest.
No strong feelings here is what I meant. Certainly, that energy is best directed into aggressive countermeasures and defense in depth of public goods.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Nah, there's actual value in hitting historical versions and with agents the gap between "how long has this product been offered by this company" and "I should go to wayback machine and do a binary search to find the earliest snapshot that contains this product offering " has closed.
I say name and shame!
Mad props to the people at the Archive. You are the heros we need in a formerly open internet that is surrendering to evil big corps and closing down free access.
The Internet Archive is in a really bad spot being attacked from multiple sides at once. But — while service has not been consistent — they have maintained open access. I can still access anonymously from Tor without Cloudflare or some other centralized gatekeeper showing me the middle finger.
If you got some money to spare, consider donating to them. They need it.
I donate to them every year b/c I fully agree they’re doing a thankless critical job very well.
Thank you for the inspiration! I just made my first donation.
I've been donating $5 to them monthly for I don't know how long. I've only recently bumped it up to $25. They're the heroes of the internet age
fully expect them and wikipedia to get assaulted by AI companies to monopolize data source access in the near future.
The future is bleak :\
I'm expecting a full court legal attack on Wikipedia at some point. It's just too good for information, and companies would rather you use their chatbot to regurgitate that info now that they have their own copies. Google was already built to pretend as if they had some magic system giving you "Answers" that were 95% just the text of the infobox they used to have for wikipedia on the side.
It's going to suddenly be extremely valuable that wikipedia didn't settle for having a small rainy day fund and instead ceaselessly grabbed every fucking donation they could for two decades so they can fight such a legal battle.
I don't think there's much grounds for a serious legal attack at this point, and also it would look so horrible from a PR standpoint no non-desperate would dare it. Anyway, google has been steering enough traffic away, now that its AI jumps in with an answer and the wikipedia link which 99% of the response is based on is always hidden with a bunch of other overlaid icons. Google has surely managed to kill off a bunch of reddit and stackoverflow traffic with this trick.
on what basis?
Wikipedia is not a challenge to the system. If it were, it would be excluded from search results, much like blogs are now.
Unrelated, but this week I've been on a memory binge with the Wayback Machine, trying to find old content of mine from the early 2000s. Took me a while but I've finally put together a good bit of info about myself at the time that I'd completely forgotten, and it's all thanks to the Internet Archive storing my little gaming review website from when I was 16. I could barely remember any of the other stuff, it's been genuinely surprising figuring out what I'd forgotten. I couldn't even remember most domains I owned aside from one, which I used as the starting point.
Still can't remember what my Tripod site address was, but that might be lost to time.
Thank you, Archive.org.
Wow, but I wonder if there's more to it.
I've not been able to access web.archive.org from my work computer - I always get the 429 error.
But I then pull out my phone and can access it just fine. All along I was assuming my company was blocking it. Still weird that it happens every time from my work PC and never from my home one.
I assume that's because the IP range of your company network overlaps with a range used by some scrapers, and if it doesn't happen on your phone even in the corporate network, then IA probably checks some extra signals like the user agent in addition to the IP
Are there any decent/reputable residential proxy companies? I’m pretty sure I’ll end up needing one occasionally, for those days when my residential IP has a poor reputation score.
There are definitely factors beyond IP being used. A week ago I found that all requests from Chrome-like browsers got a 429 across more than a half dozen networks and several machines, while Firefox reliably worked. I assume this was an overzealous policy on UAs.
In my work, it's failing on both Firefox and Chrome.
No - my phone is not connected to work's WiFi.
Wonder who the bad actors in my company are...
Doesn't have to be someone at your work, it could be a block on a whole ISP network or at least an IP subnetwork that is shared between many clients
You can try emailing the address mentioned in their post so they adjust their filters to match just the bot networks more precisely
It might just be your corporate VPN and whatever ASN it’s being routed through.
You should file a support ticket with your manager and the IT security or support desk. Show them the evidence of 429s that are blocking your assigned tasks during working hours. Also include the screenshots and files that you downloaded on your personal device in order to access your work-related materials. Be sure and thank them for adequately configuring the MDM on your personal mobile device so that you could do these work-related tasks. You should definitely also file an expense report to request reimbursement of your personal mobile bill, any data charges incurred, and the hours of networking or collaborating with external colleagues, while you were working on these work-related projects with your personal device.
Not sure if you're posting as a joke or sarcasm but accessing archive.org is not relevant to my work.
Your workplace is probably redirecting traffic through a datacenter IP range. Especially if they have their own datacenters like google, microsoft, oracle, amazon, etc.
Try making a vpn via digital ocean for example and you'll see similar patterns.
My buddy said he could not access it even from a residential IP, it was blacklisted for some reason.
Could be due to some scrapers from either your work ISP block, or the larger block which lends IPs to multiple workplaces.
They seem to be aggressively blocking IPv6 source IPs. I ran into this problem over the past month traveling. I got nothing but 429 errors until I switched on my VPN (which is IPv4 only) and magically the Wayback machine worked again. The lack of transparency on the part of IA is very frustrating.
I recently remembered a wonderful comic blog from 2010’s that is not online anymore. It was a sonderful Finnish LGTG-thened comic blog that I use to read, then forgot completely until few weeks ago. WM had it stored of course, so I could read through this amazing piece of internet art again.
I really so through some money their way, they do wonderful work.
The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine has been hit by waves of high-volume automated traffic
Thank you for not immediately blaming it on "AI bots". I suspect there's some entity manufacturing consent for strong identity/age verification/sanctioned-browser-OS "walled garden" Internet, and these random DDoSes are part of that.
I knew something was up when a few alternative YouTube front-ends I use suddenly put up the 'nubis and complained about the high volumes of traffic they were getting flooded with; of course someone actually going after that data would be aiming their "AI bots" at YouTube directly instead of trying to suck it through a tiny little-known proxy-site, so it really strained the credibility of the argument.
I really appreciate the Archive team's efforts to make the Wayback Machine more responsive, and have donated a few times to support them.
Unfortunately, the restrictions have been way too strict for the last few months: from my residential IP, simply moving the mouse on the calendar for a specific URL is enough to get stuck on 429 error messages for a while; and from corporate ISPs (for example, on airport WiFi), you often can't access the WM at all. I hope they'll find a way to relax those.
It's shame that the AI arms race causes such collateral damage. Free resources were always exploited, but the stakes ($T) and capabilities around AI allow unprecedented abuse. I wish we could go back... :/
I really don't see any solution to this; the scrapers probably wouldn't even mind destroying sources like IA too much, which would leave them as the only "authorative" source of knowledge in the end. Best way is likely regulation incl. hefty (!) fines, but politics are too slow and too fragmented to be effective. So... Enjoy it while it lasts, I guess.
I'm a little more skeptical that this is "AI is big so it is worse" issue. Yes, AI is big in scale, but this has been the case for almost every popular free service. They either start:
- charging (news / journalist services)
- gate-keeping (X forcing log-ins)
- enshittifying (lots of ads and degraded service)
The fact that the way back machine is incredibly useful but most people didn't know about it or use it very much doesn't change the fact that it has basically become very popular... only with LLM agents rather than humans. Ads alone aren't enough to support human traffic for many sites with human traffic.
> We’re getting better at telling abusive bots apart from the people who depend on the Wayback Machine every day. If you think you were blocked in error, email info@archive.org with your operating system, browser, and IP address, and we’ll look into it.
Bonus points for anyone who’d like to guess how the tragedy of the commons was resolved in the times before the enclosure movement.
Torches and pitchforks?
Is it established that the scraping scourge of late is primarily driven by AI companies? Anyone aware of any relevant studies?
Beginning to think that the difficulty to browse most websites nowadays due to throttling, is yet another negative externality of AI development that society is forced to bear.
It's not. There is no evidence, just propaganda.
"Here's what's going on."
Thank you
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49571448
I had a feeling it was due to "AI" companies and developers using "agents"
Not surprised
Anyone else feel like making a new internet and starting over
People will just bring their bots over and you'll be back to square one. Bots scraping existed before LLM companies decided to go nutso on the internet.
I wonder why doesn’t the Internet Archive require logging-in prior to accessing the Wayback Machine. It would probably help them distinguish humans from bots, at a very little cost to humans.
Gatekeeping information is not the solution
Why not? If its the difference between the information being available at all, then I choose login any day of the week.
> If its the difference between the information being available at all
That's the point. The solution should avoid information not being available. Requiring login will incentivize bots to create spam accounts and move the battle to a new frontier, hurting real people in the process.
This really only inconveniences people, not bots.
The anti virus industry needs to crack down on crawler and proxy malware, plus ISPs FINALLY need to replace CGNATs with iov6 to stop crawlers banning everyone behind a NAT.
the root of the root of all evil: NAT
How exactly does IPv6 "stop crawlers".
If anything, it will make it harder to block due to the vastness of the IPv6 address space.
CGNAT makes all ISP users appear to come from one v4 address, so blocking by v4 address becomes unworkable.
I'd be happy to pay a 5$/month donation to get a higher rate limit/more lenient filter put on me
If you get something, it isn't a donation.
Shouldn't the solution be to gate bulk access for automated services for a price? Not just the wayback machine, any personal or corporate website?
My blogs are getting slammed and there are issues with cloudflare or captchas.
> Shouldn't the solution be to gate bulk access for automated services for a price?
Fine in theory but determined scrapers will use residential proxies in bulk.
These should be illegal unless users sign off on every fucking byte.
Wayback can’t be accessed through vpn, atleast on proton. Heck, most sites simply block you for using vpn.
Thank you for the Wayback Machine. It is immensely powerful for good.
Why can't they capture OS, Browser, and IP address at the time of error?
All that information is available at the point of failure, the user should not need to email it in.
Presumedly they collect that, but the vast majority of blocks are correct and not errors. This info allows them to look up the user’s request to label it as legitimate.
I wonder if they'll end up behind Anubis at some point. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.
Plenty of threads on HN about this, Anubis does not work.
I’ve read a few different experiences with hosts having had success with Anubis to cut down on excessive scraping. One that comes to mind is the Dolphin project.[1]
I’ve read a few of those threads, but often it’s people at cross-purposes with the goals of Anubis. Is there a chance you could clarify the “not working” bit?
[1] https://dolphin-emu.org/blog/2025/06/04/dolphin-progress-rep...
> Is there a chance you could clarify the “not working” bit?
I see anubis, 90% of the time I close the tab before it finishes.
But why?
Impatience and annoyance
From a few weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49500040
Basically, the cost of an optimized solution is orders of magnitude lower than the cost of an in-browser solution. Anyone dedicated can easily afford to solve workloads higher than your users will tolerate.
You might stop casual scrapers, but you're not going to stop someone who cares. AI scraping companies care.
That's not even the fundamental problem. Even if the payload runs optimally in the browser, the cost of CPU is so small that it's basically irrelevant.
If you waste your user's time with something that would take a full minute to run on a datacenter core, you're costing the scraper something like $0.000005: 360 W TDP on a 128-core EPYC 9754 * $0.10/kWh. In reality, it'll be substantially less than that, because CPUs don't use 0W at idle.
The only way this would make any sense is if there were many more scrapers than users and scrapers cared more about latency than real users, but that's the exact opposite of reality. The entire endeavor is so fundamentally misguided that it almost seems like a psyop.
It always seems to keep me, a normal human, locked out of any site that uses it.
Plenty of threads saying it works, too.
unrelated: if a website gets hit with "This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine", do existing snapshots get purged or may they still be preserved somewhere?
They get marked as inaccessible, but still exist in IA data
is it possible to access somehow? it seems the site got excluded because of robots.txt set by some domain squatter, not manually.
Get a job at IA?
They have all the WARC file cataloged on their site outside the way back machine
See also: https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/List_of_websites_excl...
Note that Archive Team is separate from the Internet Archive.
Are any AI companies using residential proxies to scrape?
Yes. It's impossible to tell which because the split is residential proxies, dataset curators, and AI companies all being separate actors. However I fucking guarantee you it's out there and people are too cowardly to be honest about it so they don't get sued out of existence.
Oh yeah, absolutely.
Can't wayback machine just offer direct access to the archive for a premium and in doing so, pay for the service?
Not while the new dukes of the internet wielding massive armies of hijacked smart TVs have a better time browsing the web than I have; as a mere peasant with just a few IP addresses. There would be no reason to sign up and pay up for bulk access, unless open access is shut down.
There was a feature on Amazon Web Services for a while, and I wish it was still there...
Downloader pays.
I make some content and upload it. When you want to download it, you pay Amazon the egress fees. And maybe I get to charge just a bit more, to help me with the Ingress, storage, content creation, etc.
I mean, I know that there's going to be problems with rate limiting, etc. And yes, we have those problems with LLM tokens today. But this just feels like such a useful thing that it baffles me that it doesn't exist already.
The only solution is to make visitors do compute. Compressing files for the archive to access other files would be perfect for this.
Cross verify hashes to prevent cheating.
Ez.
There is a HN article on abusive AI crawlers on the front page almost every week, but we rarely talk about the path forward. Web scraping has been around for as long as the internet, and it was fine because we had established best practices (rate limiting, self-identification, robots.txt, etc.) that the industry agreed upon. Now we have AI labs and their crawlers that don't care about any of this gentlemen's agreement. So how do we go from here? Is adding more difficult Anubis and Cloudflare bot protection really the solution? How many millions of human hours and billions in infra costs are we willing to spend on this arms race?
Some approaches that I think are promising:
- A robots.txt V2[0] as a standard way for website owners to state how bots and AI crawlers can use their online content and where to go (e.g. distinguish search from AI training use cases, point to a downloadable file instead of crawling everything, etc.).
- Something like Web Bot Auth[1] as a non-centralized standard for self-identifying bots and agents cryptographically. This would allow websites to allow or deny bots very precisely.
- what else?
[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vaughan-machine-reada...
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-meunier-http-mes...
- Find some new way for Cloudflare to acquire paying customers. If their business did not depend on the status quo, they would be exceptionally well positioned to roll out the technical & organizational frameworks that that make massive botnets a thing of the past.
Yeah it’s kinda crazy to me that what was once a back alley python script is now accepted as ‘fine, free for all’. The new era of bros really are smth else.
https://archive.vn/WWENg
Why not put it in S3 with downloader pays?
As a public resource the hope is for Wayback to be free to access. I imagine putting up a paywall would be their last resort.
S3 price gouges on bandwidth.
AI companies should pay billions to wayback machine for access
I think that'd raise serious copyright concerns, if the Wayback machine started selling other people's intellectual property.
Shouldn’t it follow that it’s illegal for the AI labs to profit off of all of that stolen copyrighted data too?
They wouldn't be paying for the content, just the bandwidth. Like buying a linux OS on a CD ROM was about the cost of media not profiting off of the software.
Isn't that already a big part of reddit's business model?
It's time for copyright to end anyhow; that's what's gumming up the whole project in the first place.
I'd have a lot less of a problem with AI if everything that went into their training was public domain and made easily available to anyone for any use. It'd feel less like AI companies were just stealing the work of others and charging for it.
Seems like a reasonable norm:
* If you train AI on it, you have to afford public access to it.
* Nobody can exact violence against anybody else in response to that person providing public access to any data anymore (ie, all bytestrings are public domain).
That's the world I'd like to try in the coming years.
Why not just offer a paid endpoint for the crawlers? It's not like the demand is going to go away anytime soon.
It serves nobody except CloudFlare and hardware companies when one side set up blockers and the other side spend money putting VPN SDKs in consumer TVs.
I am also curious how the (Russian?) paywall bypass mirror archive.is is doing given that they are probably subject to similar amounts of traffic.
> It serves nobody except CloudFlare and hardware companies when one side set up blockers and the other side spend money putting VPN SDKs in consumer TVs
The problem with this perspective is that it ignores the victimization which is happening to all sorts of sites right now.
On one hand, you have content owners/suppliers which are trying to place restrictions on how much free bulk use is allowed.
When scrapers go to exotic lengths to evade the blocks, eg by using thousands of ephemeral IP addresses to collect an entire corpus, saying stuff like that makes it sound like it's all a wash.
"Oh, what a silly situation... How did we ever end up like this? It's not good for anyone ..."
No, there is a victim trying to defend themselves from rampant theft of resources, and a corporate asshole which doesn't care about the effects of their actions.
Sites would just block the Internet Archive crawler as well.
Micropayments would solve so many Internet problems. It's not too late to adopt.
Content creators could charge by page instead of depending on malware/ad/surveillance revenue. Spam is cut if there's a charge per mail. Scraping abuse goes away, along with a bunch of DDOS garbage.
The impact is a few cents per page or mail, negligible for a human. But if you're consuming a trillion pages per day, you'd reconsider.
Micropayments are blocked by government money laundering regulations increasing the costs significantly to make them untenable.
Micropayments would solve all the problems except for the problem that people absolutely loathe micropayments. Like, vein-popping furiously hate them.
Whenever the topic of micropayments for internet content comes up, a bunch of people start talking about payment processors and their floor on prices, and so on. That's not wrong, but it can be designed around and I think it's a scapegoat to avoid confronting the fact that users despise micropayments and we'd rather blame credit card companies for the lack of adoption.
Micropayments would solve so many problems for the internet. And, cryptocurrencies would solve so many problems for micropayments. But, it's a non-starter because any proposal gets flooded with people popping veins about how crypto can't solve anything.
It doesn't need to be crypto, or payment processor based.
My ideal experience would be I load $20 into the browser somewhere like a wallet in one block (that could be a payment processor step). If I visit a participating page, it decrements my wallet $.01 or whatever.
The downside is the possibility of abuse and tracking by governments, which would have to be handled at the source, not the symptom.
I worked on this before. You can solve the privacy issue using "statistical payments", by lack of a better word.
You visit website A,A,A,B,C,D,A,A
At the end of the month, you send your entire 20$ randomly to one of the websites you visited.
This will level out everyone's contribution and reward websites with lots of traffic. It eliminates the need for micropayments.
My guess? Because even with a paid endpoint, the type of unscrupulous yahoo that is DDOSing IA today would probably still abuse the free endpoints because they can. The revenue that might come from a paid endpoint could help to scale up, but with how slow IA usually seems, I suspect there is an upper limit to how much traffic they can serve without a LOT more revenue.
This is a major "this is why we can't have nice things" situation in my opinion. IA is one of the most valuable gems of the Internet. The only thing that even comes close to preserving our shared history. The damage being caused (both by the effective DDOSing and by the knock-on impact that abuse has in encouraging publishers to remove their content from the archive) is incredibly serious.
IA might be large enough to earn consideration, but generally scrapers just don't care about being good citizens. I work in the GLAM space and we offer OAI-PMH interfaces for the harvesting of our collections data - which doesn't stop companies from preferring to scrape our website for worse (less complete, less structured, less standardized) data instead.
> Why not just offer a paid endpoint for the crawlers?
Because then you're definitely violating US copyright law. There are four prongs of fair use analysis, and one of them is the "nature of the use." In this case, you'd be turning into a commercial use.
What if you're not charging for the content, but as compensation for the network bandwidth / server resources consumed by serving that content? The idea isn't to profit from content (the IA is a nonprofit anyway), just to allow the IA to continue to serve its purpose as an archive of public data without being overwhelmed by bots.
Exactly, it's a question for the lawyers to sort out.
It’s one thing to archive other companies content, it’s another to sell the access to it
Yeah, who does the Internet Archive think it is, (insert literally any AI company here)?
Which AI company is selling access to reliable verbatim copies of websites? I don't mean "it may regurgitate a paragraph", but as a reliable service where you can repeatably get website content snapshots to a reliability level that makes such a use case viable?
Using the information for training purposes is not the same thing. Not legally the same and otherwise.
That's for the lawyers to sort out, they have a lot of flexibility as a US nonprofit. The case law isn't that clear cut for this.
Internet Archive was almost destroyed by a copyright lawsuit from book publishers within the last few years. I expect they aren't excited to take on any additional risk of similar lawsuits right now.
They brought it on themselves by marketing a read-for-free product
They need access to sites to archive them. It's already hard to do it as it is, imagine if they start selling access to content. They'd be shooting themselves on the foot, independently of what the law says.
major [citation needed] on that. There are very limited exceptions to the massive power of copyright -- and they're mainly granted to libraries in the form of narrow waivers. And just the cost of fighting the most powerful copyright holders can bankrupt you -- especially if you're a relatively modestly-funded nonprofit.
I've been getting this error a lot. Asking users to email them with details of their OS, browser, IP address is just crazy. Their support is supposedly already swamped and they are asking for more!? Changes made by IA shouldn't become my responsibility.
> Asking users to email them with details of their OS, browser, IP address is just crazy.
It's surely to serve as data to help tell humans apart from bots.
> Changes made by IA shouldn't become my responsibility.
They're a free service. It's ultimately not their responsibility to service you either.
Imagine if Apple or Microsoft introduced a bug and said, ah yes we know about it we did that on purpose and we know it affects a huge number of people, if each of you could email us these details that'd be great. It's just such an insane request.
IA have broken it and have no real idea how to make it better so they are going to whitelist IPs or browsers or entire operating systems? Wild.
What is 'insane' here is the shear level of entitlement displayed here, including lumping a niche, free, volunteer supported service in with billion dollar, for profit corporations and demanding they pander to your inflated expectations.
Wild.
It doesn't matter who or what the service is, how much they have, or whatever else. They created a problem and now users have to pay for the inconvenience by emailing(!) specific details that could be captured automatically through web logs: OS, browser, IP address. It's ridiculous.
> details that could be captured automatically through web logs
You can't be serious. Are you ok? The entire point is that they're trying to tell bots and humans apart. They're trusting email (and how you write your email) as a good signal that you're human. What are you talking about getting it from the log? The point is to correlate. How do you expect them to know who you are in the log unless you give them that info?
> They created a problem
No, they're dealing with a problem, and compromised that some human users may unfortunately get blocked.
> and now users have to pay for the inconvenience
You don't have to anything. You can just not use them. They don't owe you their service.
Somebody is handing out free apple lollipops, they ran out, compromised on giving grape ones, and now you're complaining you're being forced to eat a grape one and you don't like grape. Don't eat it.
Lollipops?
No, it's more like you're requesting something from them and they're telling you they may need some technical, non-personally-identifiable info from you to fulfill your request.
Who do you think the Internet Archive is? They are not Google, they have very low funding, very high expenses and are constantly under legal pressure.
The fact you can even access the Internet Archive for free is a result of tens thousands of human hours striving for one goal. Digital Preservation. If you rely so much on IA, you should consider donating.
I do donate. But that doesn't mean I have to thank them before every meal or think that the service is perfect.
What do you expect them to do though? You have to be a reasonable person.
Data analysis would be a good start, better blocking heuristics, an off-the-shelf solution used by other organisations that don't have this problem, etc.
OTOH I do appreciate their openness. It beats those times when I try visiting a site, only to get a cryptic 403 error or similar and no suggestion the site would like to hear from me.