New York Times shut down Tor Onion service(open.nytimes.com) |
New York Times shut down Tor Onion service(open.nytimes.com) |
https://archive.is/ is still the de-facto way to read NYT articles...
It's popular on HN for sure, but archive.is only works where the NYT article is archived
Lighter weight, open source, local solutions like Bypass Paywalls Clean work on any NYT article regardless of whether archived
archive.is may be blocked for some internet subscribers in some countries
archive.is webpages are quite large and contain telemetry
For example,
</script></div></div><img style="position:absolute" width="1" height="1" src="https://[USER-IP-ADDRESS].us.TBT3.379913754.pixel.archive.is/x.gif"><script type="text/javascript">Their git pages just refer to bundled extensions.
You can get the sources from the extension, but I doubt that anybody audits them and kind of afraid to install it in my browser with access to all tabs.
Could work for a dedicated browser only for paywalls bypass though.
The onion service's days were numbered after they fired Runa Sandvik. I'm surprised it lasted this long. Looking at the pay and current labor disputes, it seems like the New York Times isn't a good place for a skilled software engineer to work these days.
They'll keep running SecureDrop over an onion service, right...?
elsewhere,
> Apple Says It Was Ordered to Pull WhatsApp From China App Store
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/technology/apple-whatsapp...
This is possible and I have done it many times.
Complying in advance with the expectation of attacks on first amendment rights only emboldens autocrats and smooths their path to total control.
https://lithub.com/resist-authoritarianism-by-refusing-to-ob...
Is there any practical advantage to a website in being explicitly reachable as a hidden service on Tor, as opposed to simply not blocking exit node IPs?
Your connection to an onion service is end-to-end encrypted and authenticated, as well, which means no MitM can trick you or sniff your traffic.
[1] https://community.torproject.org/onion-services/overview/
[1.5] http://xmrhfasfg5suueegrnc4gsgyi2tyclcy5oz7f5drnrodmdtob6t2i...
That being said, I only lurk so I don't know if there are any additional restrictions when trying to log in.
Is that the same issue you have or is it something else?
I'd love (genuinely, this is not a snarky comment) to read more about either (learnings, application) or of course both.
Tor doesn't stop people users voluntarily de-anonymising themselves for specific sites. It does stop curious entities on the network from seeing what people do.
These have all been widely been debunked, including by Israeli media. But NYT never retracted their propaganda piece. This gave a free hand for the IDF, with U.S backing, to commit mass murder on an industrial scale in Gaza.
How are they even relevant anymore, and why do people pay to consume literal foreign propaganda? The purpose of the news media is to inform, but these guys are doing the complete opposite.
https://x.com/zei_squirrel/status/1761740292015767736 https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schw...
Israeli Jewish citizens criticize the war
People abroad criticize the war
But outside the country, many Jewish people abroad defend it and have this wildly incendiary defense mechanism against the people abroad, as if every critique from anyone is part of a thinly veiled movement to disrupt their right to existence
Why cant the rest of us be assumed to be at parity with Israeli citizen’s critique?
so unproductive
Also, you tell a private company information that you are reading the NYT and which articles you read. If the NYT is banned or a signal of suspicion where you live, that doesn't help.
Prerequisites:
- Linux: You may need `sudo` privileges to install Tor and modify system files.
- macOS: Homebrew must be installed (`brew`) to manage Tor.
- A web server must already be running on the specified local port (e.g., 8080).
- Firewall: This function does not configure the firewall. Ensure that:
- Tor’s default port (9050) is allowed.
- Your web server’s port (e.g., 8080) is accessible locally.
#!/usr/bin/env bash
# Function to add a Tor hidden service for a local web server
add_tor_hidden_service() {
local local_port="${1:-8080}" # Default to 8080 if no port is provided
local torrc=""
local tordir=""
local sudo_cmd=""
local os_type=""
# Detect OS and set paths
if [[ "$OSTYPE" == "linux-gnu"* ]]; then
os_type="linux"
torrc="/etc/tor/torrc"
tordir="/var/lib/tor"
sudo_cmd="sudo -n"
elif [[ "$OSTYPE" == "darwin"* ]]; then
os_type="macos"
torrc="$(brew --prefix)/etc/tor/torrc"
tordir="$(brew --prefix)/var/lib/tor"
else
echo "Error: Unsupported OS (Linux or macOS required)" >&2
return 1
fi
# Install Tor if not already installed
if ! command -v tor &>/dev/null; then
echo "Installing Tor..." >&2
if [[ "$os_type" == "linux" ]]; then
if [ -f /etc/debian_version ]; then
$sudo_cmd apt update && $sudo_cmd apt install -y tor
elif [ -f /etc/redhat-release ]; then
$sudo_cmd yum install -y tor || $sudo_cmd dnf install -y tor
else
echo "Error: Only Debian or RedHat-based Linux supported" >&2
return 1
fi
elif [[ "$os_type" == "macos" ]]; then
brew install tor
fi
fi
# Ensure Tor is running
if [[ "$os_type" == "linux" ]]; then
$sudo_cmd systemctl start tor
elif [[ "$os_type" == "macos" ]]; then
brew services start tor
fi
# Configure hidden service
local hidden_service_dir="$tordir/hidden_service_$local_port"
local dir_line="HiddenServiceDir $hidden_service_dir"
local port_line="HiddenServicePort 80 127.0.0.1:$local_port"
if ! grep -qF -- "$dir_line" "$torrc"; then
echo "Configuring Tor hidden service..." >&2
echo "$dir_line" | $sudo_cmd tee -a "$torrc" >/dev/null
echo "$port_line" | $sudo_cmd tee -a "$torrc" >/dev/null
fi
# Restart Tor to apply changes
echo "Restarting Tor..." >&2
if [[ "$os_type" == "linux" ]]; then
$sudo_cmd systemctl restart tor
elif [[ "$os_type" == "macos" ]]; then
brew services restart tor
fi
# Wait for onion address to be generated
local onion_address=""
for attempt in {1..30}; do
if [[ -f "$hidden_service_dir/hostname" ]]; then
onion_address=$($sudo_cmd cat "$hidden_service_dir/hostname")
break
fi
sleep 1
done
if [[ -z "$onion_address" ]]; then
echo "Error: Failed to generate onion address" >&2
return 1
fi
echo "Success! Your web server is now available on the Tor network." >&2
echo "Onion address: $onion_address" >&2
echo "$onion_address"
}
# Example usage
# serve -p 8080
# add_tor_hidden_service 8080
add_tor_hidden_service "$@"
Mining for a nice vanity hostname might be more difficult tho! How would that be done?
https://community.torproject.org/onion-services/advanced/van...
“The Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper’s late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy—set by Sulzberger—to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.”
going back in time like that says nothing about the NY Times of today. In that same time period, the Democrats were the party defending racial segregation, it was your great+ grandparents
That was 75 years ago. If you're going to grind an axe, at least pick one from this century.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_con...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_con...
The short of that story is this: Something happens. The mainstream media (including the Times) write about it in a way that is unflattering to the Venezuelan government (or whatever enemy du-jour is targetted). Weeks later, when it no longer matters, the Times prints a more accurate version, but still manages to be as uncomplimentary as possible. As the time itself said--two weeks later:
>"CÚCUTA, Colombia — The narrative seemed to fit Venezuela’s authoritarian rule: Security forces, on the order of President Nicolás Maduro, had torched a convoy of humanitarian aid as millions in his country were suffering from illness and hunger." (from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-...)
Independent South American journalists got it right. The UN tried to set the record straight about this aid convoy, the day after the event. But from the NYT, we got 'the narrative'. And that article that finally said Mr. Maduro didn't do it, came out two weeks later. By then the damage was done.
I've observed that same dynamic with other events as well, such as during the Bolivian coup attempt of 2019. The OAS manufactured a non-existent electoral crisis. No major US paper pushed back on that narrative, which was later shown to be an artifact of how the votes counting process--as the Bolivian government claimed all along, rather than any real crisis.
The Times simply can not be counted upon to give unbiased coverage in other situations either: Syria, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Russia, Ukraine, China, are all strongly biased with the official US narrative.
This is why I cannot subscribe to this paper. It is too often useless as a place where I can go to to get truth.
https://inthesetimes.com/article/the-rise-of-professional-jo...
They had been Iraq hawks, they are Ukraine hawks now.
The NYT most closely matches Chomsky's media analysis of all outlets, and unlike other outlets the NYT hides it well.
https://css.seas.upenn.edu/new-york-times-a-case-study-in-in...
It's certainly not that they come up with outright lies. They have a ton of good people who work there. But there's something rotten higher up in the way they put their finger on the scales.
This is besides the mountains of bullshit they pushed to promote the Iraq war - propaganda they have never, and will never fully admit to.
Pretty useless if those who need it the most can’t read it.
Telling 90% of the truth means telling the least important 90%.
The love of money corrupts all but the noblest of people's hearts.
They did run the story; they withheld it for awhile.
> to protect GW's chances at reelection
Is there evidence of that? I've never heard it and I promise that no Republican thinks the NY Times actively helping them.
Perhaps moreso outside the USA where just a handful of paid articles can sway some topic important for US foreign policy.
I don't see how an ordinary non-technical user could obtain access to a "high quality VPN". I'm not sure a technically skilled user could without a lot of work to setup some sort of chain of anonymous proxies.
Endorsements
2024: Kamala Harris (Democrat)
2020: Joe Biden (Democrat)
2016: Hillary Clinton (Democrat)
2012: Barack Obama (Democrat)
2008: Barack Obama (Democrat)
2004: John Kerry (Democrat)
2000: Al Gore (Democrat)
1996: Bill Clinton (Democrat)
1992: Bill Clinton (Democrat)> In an interview in 2013, [NYT Executive Editor] Keller said that the newspaper had decided not to report the piece after being pressured by the Bush administration
Bush told them not to run the story while he was running for president. As always, the boot was presented and they licked it clean.
This is a really strong claim -- the part about the 'why'. Strong claims generally require strong evidence. I'm perfectly willing to believe they spiked the story for other, more plausible reasons, but come on, their editorial endorsing John Kerry is right there for everyone to read:
> There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure...When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing's war against taxing the wealthy. As a result, money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had backed...The Bush White House has always given us the worst aspects of the American right without any of the advantages. We get the radical goals but not the efficient management.
So what exactly is the theory here that they spiked an NSA story to help this guy win re-election?? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/john-kerry-for-pr...
The ratio of “college hate speech” to coverage of Israel’s targeted and mass war crimes has been unbelievable. I’d be deeply ashamed if I worked there.
(Putting aside that this apartheid has been going on for far longer, of course, without consistent coverage.)
I've never heard anyone except user Luma at the top of this HN thread make that claim.
If anything the time and energy devoted on this thread to disputing an apparently hastily-written and not fact-checked claim is evidence for why serious journalism (and a good editor!) is worth its weight in gold.
I forgot they even got a pulitzer for this.
And then, where do you get information?
Toplevel OP, however, is saying some things that are more radical and less studious:
* "NYT aligns itself with power at every opportunity." Because the statement is totalizing it is trivially disproved. Off the top of my head-- see the "Pentagon Pundits" story by David Barstow[1]. It won a Pulitzer and was published while Bush was still president. It was also a front-page story IIRC.
* "never ran the story to protect GW's chances at reelection." IIRC Glenn Greenwald was the most vocal/detailed critic of Keller's cowardice on spiking the domestic surveillance story in the lead up to the 2004 election. But even he didn't claim Keller did in order to help GW win the election. OP made that up out of whole cloth.
I don't think HN comments like this are propaganda, but they are low-effort and apparently impulsively written.
At least nobody has yet used the pretentious terms "Gell-Mann Amnesia" or "Overton window" in this thread, so that's progress. :)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_military_analyst_prog...
I wouldn't consider him a reputable source on anything.
When it published the article, the newspaper reported that it had delayed publication because the George W. Bush White House had argued that publication "could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny." The timing of the New York Times story prompted debate, and the Los Angeles Times noted that "critics on the left wondering why the paper waited so long to publish the story and those on the right wondering why it was published at all." Times executive editor Bill Keller denied that the timing of the reporting was linked to any external event, such as the December 2005 Iraqi parliamentary election, the impending publication of Risen's book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, or the then-ongoing debate on Patriot Act reauthorization. Risen and Lichtblau won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2006.
In an interview in 2013, Keller said that the newspaper had decided not to report the piece after being pressured by the Bush administration and being advised not to do so by The New York Times Washington bureau chief Philip Taubman, and that "Three years after 9/11, we, as a country, were still under the influence of that trauma, and we, as a newspaper, were not immune."
That's the old grey lady, same as she ever was. Take a gander at the rest of that Wiki page, this isn't an isolated incident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime
Relevant quote: "In politics, a regime (also spelled régime) is a system of government that determines access to public office, and the extent of power held by officials. The two broad categories of regimes are democratic and autocratic."
It is true that as a term it has accrued some negative connotations due to the frequent use of the all-encompassing "regime" to speak of governments where their exact denomination tends to fall on the autocratic side of things. From a journalistic point of view, it is better to use a neutral term than a charged one; which unfortunately as you've noticed yourself it can taint the term to readers who are not familiar with its exact scope.
But it is correct to call it Biden's regime, just like the current administration (perhaps a better term given its popularity in the US) is part of Trump's regime.
I have sat in that library and read the NYT with a big, loud, front page headline critical of China and the CCP.
I have never seen pages missing.
Biden’s age was a bigger factor because it was absolutely clear he was in rapid cognitive decline. No doubt it’s also happened to Trump at his age (as it does to everyone), but Biden essentially hid from any unscripted press the entirety of his Presidency.
Trump does the opposite. We can all judge his actual cognitive faculties because he’s constantly tweeting or in front of cameras. It’s pretty clear to anyone with a brain that most of the things the Biden administration did, Biden himself had very little to do with. Trump, again, is the opposite.
The NYT honestly should have been covering Biden’s decline more. It bordered on a coverup. The fact that people were surprised at his debate performance points to that.
That's what makes what they're doing kind of insidious. They're not making things up - Biden is indeed old. It's how they weight things and how much they push them.
There's a reason the "NYT Pitch Bot" account is so popular - it's poking fun at a real phenomenon.
The story of the cognitive decline was pushed aggressively by the Trump people because it’s good TV. Just like they neutralized Desantis with the weirdo campaign.
It’s pretty obvious that Trump is a turnip. I’ve heard him speak in person… the sound bites sound cogent on TV, but the dude is like a drunk monkey he can’t string sentences together. The reactionary policy isn’t out of Trump’s head, its from a little army of fascist attorneys.
Both are odious Presidents… it’s ridiculous that a country as large and powerful as the United States is led by 80 year olds.
The story of cognitive decline was pushed because it was true. That's why he basically did no press, and why he used a teleprompter during times no other president would: https://archive.is/C60uH
When he did speak without one, he regularly said stuff like "they don't want me to talk about that."
I don't disagree that they're both way too old. However, the Trump we have now seems to be basically the same Trump we had in 2016. He rambles about as much as he did then. He could quickly deteriorate though - we'll see.
'Pressure' doesn't mean fear necessarily. It could just result in different calculations of concern or risk.
More importantly, the word 'pressure' upthread was written by a random Wikipedia editor. It's not quoting NYT editor Bill Keller. I think reading much into it - or even relying on it at all - is risky.
From what I know, do I think the Bush administration attempted to pressure the NYT? I wouldn't be surprised. But the evidence says the Bush team made arguments about risk to national security. Those certainly could have influenced the NYT, and I think the NYT said that.
If that's what OP thinks, I'm not sure they actually know what a vaccine is.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-t...
Obviously the editorial page is not in favor of Trump.
The organization as a whole... IDK, I have a suspicion that they kind of view the chaos as good for business and exciting, rather than 'boring and dull' like Biden.
It's not a blatant bias, it's more subtle than that. It does not involve spreading falsehoods. More things like 'both sides!'.
It sounds more like CIA spies wanted to go poking around in foreign countries, interviewing people and photographing things, which being an NYT reporter allowed them to do.
The newspaper owners, though? The point of a newspaper is to obtain political power, both direct and through favours. The CIA was willing to overthrow a democratic government and replace it with a military dictatorship to help out a banana company - who wouldn't want to be owed favours like that?
That basically takes away a major tool of journalists and allows you to paint whoever you disagree with as wrong simply because they don't wish to go public.
Very, very dangerous way of thinking. Allowing sourcesto stay anonymous is a major tool for journalists.
I'm a daily reader of NYT and I can't count the number of times I see them use it each year. It's become standard practice enough to not be just some edge case to protect people.
It's like how the government classifies everything because it makes their job easier.
Not knowing the person, agency, level of access, etc behind a quote makes it extremely difficult to take seriously. A ton of trust is being put on NYT that it's not just purposefully fed information or gossip.
Or that administration/agency using "anonymous source" nonsense to gatekeep - wanting to reward particular reporters/outlets that 'play by the rules'.
You'll see a reporter ask something at a press conference, and there will be a refusal or non-answer. But then the press secretary pulls aside a few reporters after the press conference and gives them details.
Unfortunately because the press are willing to do this, more and more information simply does not come out through official channels, which means politicians, agencies, administrations, etc have accountability - their reputation simply isn't on the line.
right, but not quite: toe the line means for example standing on an athletic field right at the out-of-bounds line without letting your toes onto the wrong side of it; said about any rule-based situation, to purposely stay within the rules, indicating an individuals obedience with no implication of "testing" the rules.
If you look at old Trump interviews, from say 20 years ago, he has absolutely degraded, and not by a small amount.
Age never mattered with regards to Trump, but it was a meme with Biden even when he was VP. In terms of press coverage and popular perception it was never a race between two old guys, it was a race between "the old guy" and Trump.
In this discussion of the NY Times, they covered heavily and the Biden camp complained bitterly. Can you say when they started covering it?