Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today (adguard-dns.io)

Article summary

AdGuard, a company offering ad-blocking services, was contacted by an organization called Web Abuse Association Defense, which claimed that Archive.today, a website that allows users to save snapshots of web pages, was hosting illegal content. AdGuard investigated the claim and found it to be suspicious, discovering that the organization was recently registered and seemed to be set up to hide the identities of those behind it. The illegal content was removed from Archive.today, but AdGuard believes there are indications of criminal behavior and will file an official complaint with the French police. The situation is unfolding amid reports of an FBI investigation into the owner of Archive.today.

Main themes

• Online censorship
• Intermediary liability
• Copyright and paywalls
• Child sexual abuse material
• DNS and online infrastructure
• French law and regulation

What commenters say

• The pressure on Archive.today may be motivated by its ability to bypass paywalls, which is a threat to big media companies.
• The use of CSAM allegations as a means to pressure Archive.today is a tactic that has been used in the past to target websites that are otherwise within the bounds of free speech.
• AdGuard's decision to initially comply with the complaint was reasonable given the legal advice they received, but some argue that they should have fought it from the start.
• The case highlights the importance of verifying claims and doing due diligence before taking action, as false reports can have serious consequences.
• The use of intermediary liability laws can lead to meritless censorship and deputize corporations to act as police under a guilty-until-proven-innocent framework.
• Some argue that Archive.today's ability to host CSAM is a legitimate concern, while others believe that the site's prompt removal of the content suggests that it is not a major issue.
• The situation raises questions about the role of DNS providers and other intermediaries in regulating online content and the need for transparency and accountability in their decision-making processes.