DISCLAIMER 1: What follows is a mixture of facts, speculation & satire therefore the adverb “allegedly” prefaces and applies to the whole article.
DISCLAIMER 2: I am a proud Neo-Troll & I DO NOT represent anybody but myself. Truth with zero protocol will be used; get offended. Feel free to disregard everything I say based on my Troll status.
For those who stayed, read on;
(EDITOR’S NOTE: Feel free to checkout Jack’s site)
The Problem with Trusting the Site www.archive.is
It is the year 2017.
The site archive.is has become permanently unreachable and all of the evidence it contained is forever lost.
SJWs, radfems, political pundits, hate mongers and all kinds of hypocrites laugh their asses off because all the incriminating evidence against them is lost.
The scenario above is hypothetical but not implausible. Nothing online is too big to fail, not even Google.
The inconvenient truth? The site Archive.is does not stand a better chance than Google itself.
See, that is the problem, we have delegated the preservation of evidence to an unknown 3rd party in a collective glorified act of faith. The moment archive.is goes offline, so does the evidence.
If you disagree, please tell me the names of the people who run archive.is. Also, while we are at it, please tell me who pays their bills.
I do not know about you but so far, I haven’t found:
- Who is behind archive.is
- How they obtain their money
- How long they plan to operate
I think their claim of being able to operate their site on donations alone is bullshit. Especially when their “donate” link leads not to their own campaign but to a campaign for an animal shelter at fundrazr. Perhaps they own the site fundrazr.com but it does not seem like. Look,
Furthermore, a site with their speed and data needs is expensive to maintain and as the data they keep grows, so do their costs. See, the most perplexing thing is they do not seem to profit from their traffic via ads. Look, this is their very cryptic response to potential advertisers in their FAQ:
Will advertising appear on the archive one day ?
I cannot make a promise that it will not. With the current growth rate I am able to keep the archive free of ads. Well, I can promise it will have no ads at least till the end of 2014.
Clearly the FAQ has not been updated in at least two years so either their costs are incredibly low regardless of the escalating size of the data or they suck at lying and have no future in politics. Also, notice the personal way to address the question via “I” and not “we”.
Also, perhaps I suck at googling the answers to the questions above but if Denis Petrov exists, he, like most people in the Czech Republic, seems to like to keep things private and also make lofty, unrealistic promises about the still uncertain future of his site.
Again, nothing, absolutely nothing online is too big to fail, not even Google. So the lofty promises stated by archive.is of keeping the archived sites “forever” are either a failed attempt at humor at best or just plain retardation/delusion. Look:
How long the page will be stored ?
Virtually forever. We have a lot of free space and alhough the archive grows with time, the storage and bandwidth get cheaper.
Once the site goes under, what will happen to all those incriminating tweets, infamous blog posts and all that evidence that people never bothered to save themselves and instead used archive.is?
Exactly. We will experience regret.
By using archive.is so indiscriminately, we ALL have been building on sand.
My main beef is that those who regularly use archive.is (including myself) is that we have become so lazy, that we often not even bother to screenshot anymore and instead become excessively reliant on archive.is.
A single point of failure makes it easy for a system to fail, and for us users of archive.is, it is just a matter of time.
Think about it, if all of your archival evidence hinges upon a single point of failure called archive.is, then we have a system waiting to fail.
An let’s not forget that after failure, the first emotion is either anger or regret. Then we almost automatically exercise this predictable and hypothetical form of regretful day-dreaming by using expressions like:
“I should have done X Y or Z”
It is almost as if we took for granted we could time travel and correct the past with our pointless and retarded
“I should have done X Y or Z’s”
Surprisingly, we never complain about our own pointless hypothetical dreams after the data is lost but we do complain when hypothetical dreams happen before said loss of data.
In other words, we enjoy romanticizing regret after the loss but we actively disregard warnings that would prevent such regrets.
The article you are reading is, in and of itself, likely to be labelled as just “paranoia” instead of being taken as what it actually is intended be:
Many, many us have lost data at the personal level: A hard drive that failed, a broken BluRay, a memory card that stopped working and the list goes on.
Nearly all those who have experienced irreversible data loss, have entertained those romantic regretful thoughts featuring the back-up that never took place. Then we tell ourselves:
“That was so stupid, I should have done a back-up.”
How come most of us agree that keeping only one unique copy of our personal data is just stupid but when we actively keep only one unique copy at archive.is we believe it to be “less-stupid”.
Keeping one copy of your evidence in foreign hands is not only an act of blind trust but also an act of glorified ignorance.
Problem is, glorified ignorance is still ignorance. Why? Because common sense is the least common of all senses. I am guilty of it and possibly most of those who have used archive.is are guilty of the same crime:
Trust itself is a fashionable intellectual crime.
This begs the question, what is trust in and of itself?
Answer: Most likely, trust is the acceptance of lack of evidence as imaginary fact based on faith.
For example, when you board a plane, you trust the pilots to be real pilots. You almost never go he extra mile and check their backgrounds and their qualifications because it would just be too impractical and time-consuming to vet them. Why would anybody want to go to the trouble of vetting a pilot just in the veeeeery unlikely case they ever wanted to crash the airplane intentionally, because, who the fuck would ever have an airplane death wish in which they wanted to take the whole plane full of passengers with them, right?
Instead, you trust the airline with your life.
Don’t tell me that is not an act of faith. Every time you trust someone to drive you to a place, you trust them with your life because you do not expect them to be suicidal.
After all, who would have time to vet pilots, bus drivers or even uber/taxi drivers. Nobody has time for that.
Besides, there are better, more important things to do in life such as: porn, swearing, weed and beer. (in that order preferably)
Life, however, seems to be filled with perplexing acts of trust that should not take place yet they do.
In our societies, believing something plausible with little or no certifiable evidence is called “trust” but believing something implausible, retarded, absurd and delusional with zero evidence is instead called “religion” (all religions including feminism)
When faced with lack of verifiable data, we go by mostly instincts or sometimes statistics then we exercise all the necessary kinds of exotic rationalizations and mental gymnastics to justify our decisions. Possibly because of that, instead of running a background check on the pilot for the plane we will board, we just trust them like a little lazy toddler with diabetes type 2, raised by an ignorant double-espresso retarded radfem mom (just to make the toddler in the metaphor is extra-retarded).
With this kind of broken logic where people blindly trust others with their lives, it only makes sense people would not give a single fuck when trusting someone with something much less valuable than their own lives: Their data.
We blindly trust archive.is not with our lives but with our data. This level of trust is just fascinatingly idiotic. We even trust companies like google with our passwords, our photos, our thoughts and our personal data and when asked “why” people just say:
“Why not? I trust Google”
It is almost as if people were willing to instantly sodomize the bloated, rotting carcass of an anthrax-ridden elephant without ever wearing a condom and when asked why, people would just say:
“Why not ? I trust the elephant”
Granted, to date, Google is not a rotting, agonizing creature with anthrax, (that would be Twitter) but the fact remains: We should not trust companies with our data or, at the very least, we should not trust only one company with our data.
Only using archive.is for archival purposes is just a blind act of trust based on ignorance.
Want proof? Look at their FAQ:
The above FAQ is nebulous at best. But since the service is free, why wear a condom while sodomizing the dead elephant right? Or…who is the elephant here? Are we the ones getting the bareback treatment without even noticing? Make sure you check your underwear in the morning.
But more seriously. Why are they so confident they will outlive the universe with their idiotic promise to keep the archives “virtually forever”?
If what they wanted was to instill fear in the hearts of their enemies with teenage-like hyperbole, they mostly failed like retards. These people are supposed to be professionals and are supposed to use language accordingly.
But, are these people a spin-off of Wikileaks? Unlikely, also it is very unlikely archive.is is a honeypot site set up by the FBI (that idea would be too Alex Jones-ish) but one thing is certain: It is a single point of failure.
So how do you fix the single point of failure?
Those who regularly backup valuable data know of the 3-2-1 rule which goes as follows:
The accepted rule for backup best practices is the three-two-one rule. It can be summarized as: if you’re backing something up, you should have:
At least three copies,
In two different formats,
with one of those copies off-site.
Relaying solely on Archive.is clearly is just #3 “one copy off site” thus it does not fully comply with the 3-2-1 rule .
By only using archive.is we are preparing to fail via our failure to prepare.
The solution to this problem is not only having a RAID array at home for one of the two formats but also using other forms of redundancy online to expand the last “off-site copy”.
My suggestion for coders out there is to perhaps consider writing a simple google chrome extension that will:
- Backup the page in question to at least 3 archival sites besides archive.is
- Upload a personal copy of the zipped file on archive.is to at least 3 cloud-based storage solutions such as one-drive/google-drive/dropbox.
- Copy a text-based version of the site to at least 3 pastebin sites
- Force the user to save a local copy of the zip file generated by archive.is containing the archived site.
Yes, there is a zip file at archive.is. I am talking about the damn personal copy almost nobody ever fucking touches, the one on the top right hand corner that appears immediately after the page is saved/visited:
Just in case it wasn’t clear.
Granted, placing your trust in online giants like Google or Microsoft is not too smart but forcing the user to build copy redundancy sure beats the present and flimsy trust-based act of faith we exercise by only saving the one single copy at archive.is.
You will bitterly remember me and this post when archive.is goes offline.
After all, regret is one of the hardest emotions to forget.
Thank you for reading.
- If you have more verifiable info on the inner workings of archive.is I will be more than glad to read your also verified sources on the based comment section because, so far, their FAQ leaves too many questions unanswered.
- Yes, most of the links used for this article were from archive.is, just to make sure the article contradicts itself or makes the point clear. Or maybe, just maybe, trolly yours is lazy as [email protected]