this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2025
362 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

76839 readers
1155 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
362
Adguard DNS: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today (adguard-dns.io)
submitted 2 days ago by 1984@lemmy.today to c/technology@lemmy.world
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I feel like more people should know about this, specially the tech-native Lemmy audience that may be using Adguard DNS.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Kissaki@feddit.org 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

They link to the org, which now hosts a response press release (PDF) (EN after FR).

I read through it, and it makes wrong claims, misrepresentations, and wrong conclusions.

It claims AdGuard is lying and shifting its stance and communication while misrepresenting what AdGuard said and published.

They seem to confuse the availability of non-disclosed URLs with removal of known URLs. They seem to confuse successful reports by AdGuard with other content still being available. They fail to disclose, or conveniently evade disclosing, what and how they reported, only saying their report (of unlawful content) can be requested by law enforcement or adguard. They can't fathom AdGuard blocking the content while it is available, and then changing stance and unblocking after the reporting and consequential removal was successful.

The AdGuard post is certainly much more convincing than their "rebuttal" with logical errors and misrepresentations.