The entire reason your site was valuable is because of its credibility as a third party archival site. There's a reason the U.S. govt wants to find anything they can to discredit you; because it threatens them to have an objective resource that you can reliably point as proof something was on the Internet or was changed. With this DDoS shit and editing pages you have completely destroyed the site's credibility, & for what? bafflingly self-induced sabotage. Now you've given an excuse not to care.

Well, look at the attitude of the articles and discussions before the “DDoS” (or even FBI) story. Was it significantly better? The bias was there already.

Myself, I am not happy with this pivot toward being a pirate site where noble websites offload their shit to notorious, making them even more noble and us more notorious.

The drama just incised an existing abscess that would have burst eventually anyway, while you suggest petting and powdering it.

For us it is definitively better, for nobles — not so. Don’t you consider their actions as “self-induced sabotage”?

Yet another improvement: in the absence of tabloid dramas (yet presence finne troll blogs), it was easy for attackers like WAAD to depict us as a “child porn” website: they just put into their report much more various (dis)info overwhelming our media presence. A “website banned on Wikipedia” must be not a “child porn” one at least, while the finne troll’s initial discourse and its dissemination by tabloids was open—not to say crafted—for such interpretations, heavily contributing to increasing trust in letters from WAAD, June Maxam and other trolls (the conflict with the finne troll lies in this, not in his disclose of anything sensitive; that has now been corrected by finne himself, and even better than if he had simply deleted his post). It’s not about number of people read the blog. It’s about what someone who’s never heard of us would see first after getting a WAAD-letter. For example, if they check Wikipedia’s article, or whatever AI tools show them first. If the quotes come from the finne blog, she’ll likely believe the letter, there are also Russian Carders, German Jews, FBI and so on, right? If “this site was used on Wikipedia for years and then got banned for some rant” she likely won’t. The default reputation baseline—thanks to Jani Patokallio’s compilations—was around a “russian” “jew” “shady” “underground” “guerrilla” “carder” “child porn” “FBI wanted” website, not “a wholetrusted internet notary”, as you try to depict.

If you think this is all paranoia and conspiracy theories, consider the fact that WAAD registered a French association whose sole activity, after a year spent in the cold, was to launch a barrage of complaints against us. Trolls are patient operatives, they do play the long games.