Thanks I had edited my post once I saw that - buried deep in the discussion.
I don't get why they couldn't just say what they did instead of disingenuously implying that article content had been "tampered".
Given the breadth of misinformation out there today, shoddy evidence and misleading language makes people give archive.today the benefit of the doubt, and actually hurts the case against them.
I don't get why they couldn't just say what they did instead of disingenuously implying that article content had been "tampered".
Given the breadth of misinformation out there today, shoddy evidence and misleading language makes people give archive.today the benefit of the doubt, and actually hurts the case against them.