Our scientists know not to give them that sort of power. Who knows what horrors we could see should the lower primates gain clairvoyance or telekinesis.
I know that sometimes the behavior of each archiver service is a bit different. For example, it's possible that both Archive.today and the Internet Archive say they have a copy of a page, but then when you open up the IA version, you might see that it renders completely differently or not at all. It might be caused because the webpage has like two scrollbars, or maybe there's a redirect that happens when a link to the page is loaded. I notice this seems to happen on documentation pages that are hosted by Salesforce. It can be a bit of a pain if you want to save to save a backup copy online of a release note or something like that for everyone to easily reference in the future.
> it's possible that both Archive.today and the Internet Archive say they have a copy of a page, but then when you open up the IA version, you might see that it renders completely differently or not at all
AT archives the page as seen, even including a screenshot.
IA archives the page as loaded, then when you view hamfistedly injects its header bar and executes the source JS. As you'd expect the result is often wrecked - or tampered.
You don't even need to do requests if you are the owner of the URL. Robot.txt changes are applied in retrospect, which means you can disallow crawls to /abc, request a re-crawl, and all snapshots from the past which match this new rule will be removed.
Trying to search the Wayback machine almost always gives me their made-up 498 error, and when I do get a result the interface for scrolling through dates is janky at best.
The operators() of archive.today (and the other domains) are doing shadey things and the links are not working so why keep the site around as for example Internet archives waybackmachine works as alternative to it.
reply