
Uncensorable Wikipedia on IPFS - bpierre
https://ipfs.io/blog/24-uncensorable-wikipedia/
======
cjbprime
Strategically, this (advertising IPFS as an anti-censorship tool and
publishing censored documents on it and blogging about them) doesn't seem like
a great idea right now.

Most people aren't running IPFS nodes, and IPFS isn't seen yet as a valuable
resource by censors. So they'll probably just block the whole domain, and now
people won't know about or download IPFS.

We saw this progression with GitHub in China. They were blocked regularly,
perhaps in part for allowing GreatFire to host there, but eventually GitHub's
existence became more valuable to China than blocking it was. That was the
point at which I think that, if you're GitHub, you can start advertising
openly about your role in evading censorship, if you want to.

But doing it here at this time in IPFS's growth just seems like risking that
growth in censored countries for no good reason.

~~~
kyledrake
My god Chris, you're seriously interpreting this action as a _business
strategy_? If being docile in the face of evil is Keybase's business strategy,
I strongly urge you to re-prioritize, because if the government goes rogue,
it's going to kick down _your door_ looking for access to encrypted
communications from dissidents, whether you're polite about it or not. How
many John Does have you waffled on because it was a "better business strategy"
so far?

~~~
wamatt
The OP and GP provide an example of the age-old dichotomy between
deontological (kyledrake) and consequentialist (cjbprime) viewpoints. Which is
more correct, has been debated for centuries and unlikely to be resolved
anytime soon, as it's highly subjective.

Should Youtube, have refrained from using copyrighted material that
contributed to their popularity, given it greatly increased their chances of
success compared to the other nascent video sharing sites at the time?

Was reddit.com, wrong for using sock-puppets accounts to kickstart content
when they were starting out?

Some will say it's always wrong to use 'x' in a strategy no matter what.
Others would argue that while 'x' might be a bit evil, it's necessary to
ensure survival, and will result in a greater good (ie the service being
useful to millions vs extinction) in the long run.

~~~
inimino
GP suggested that IPFS might not want to _openly circumvent a specific country
's censorship system, and blog about it_, and you're comparing not doing that
to the use of fake accounts by reddit? The issue is not as complicated as
you're making it.

~~~
jychang
Well, yeah. The consequentialist viewpoint is if IPFS fails to succeed because
it jumped too early, then ZERO people benefit from it. That's arguably the
greater sin.

There's a saying, cutting off the nose to spite the face. That could apply
here.

~~~
bigbugbag
The greater sin is not failing, as failing is expected on the road to success.
The greater sin would be to not jump when the opportunity presents itself.

Maybe look at it from a different point of view, if to someone in Turkey
trying to access wikipedia it makes a difference then it's already a success.

It's a question of where you want to dray the line, and maybe the
consequentialist drawing the line when ipfs takes over the world and gets 3
billions daily users is far fetched.

------
badsectoracula
Correct me if i'm wrong, but if accessing some content through IPFS makes you
a provider for that content doesn't that mean that you are essentially
announcing to the world that you accessed the content, which in turn can be
used by those who do not want you to access it for targeting you?

In other words, if someone from Turkey (or China or wherever) uses IPFS to
bypass censored content, wouldn't it be trivial for the Turkish/Chinese/etc
government to make a list with every single person (well, IP) that accessed
that content?

~~~
derefr
Yes; IPFS is essentially Freenet with the obscuring-content-origin bits turned
off. If you want anonymous IPFS, use Freenet.

~~~
diggan
Well, there are more differences but the most important one is that with
Freenet, you get content pushed to you, you help the entire network host
whatever is there. Someone can push content to your node, that you might not
want to host.

While with IPFS, the only data shared from your node, is data you explicitly
agreed to share. So data is not implicitly available on the network, people
have to agree to help share it.

------
smsm42
Ironically, I've just discovered that [https://ipfs.io/](https://ipfs.io/) has
certificate signed by StartCom, known for being source of fake certificates
for prominent domains[1]. So in order to work around censorship, I have to go
to site which to establish trust relies on a provider known for providing fake
certificates. D'oh.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StartCom#Criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StartCom#Criticism)

~~~
zrth
Even more funny: There are individuals out there trying to help others. HN's
top replies are sarcastic and critical. Hope the poor devs don't see this
thread today. If so, thanks so much for the awesome technology!

~~~
smsm42
I'm not sure how pointing out a security flaw contradicts helping others. Do
you think if people try to help others, nobody should point out their
mistakes? Are you also against submitting bug reports to projects that you
consider good and only send them to the most evil ones?

------
k26dr
The following command will allow you to pin (ie. seed/mirror) the site on your
local IPFS node if you'd like to contribute to keeping the site up:

ipfs pin add QmT5NvUtoM5nWFfrQdVrFtvGfKFmG7AHE8P34isapyhCxX

~~~
whyrusleeping
I also recommend the `--progress` flag to get a bit of feedback.

------
mirimir
Some additional information may help in the duty vs prudence debate. It's true
that IPFS gateways can be blocked. But as noted, anyone can create gateways,
IPFS works in partitioned networks, and content can be shared via sneakernet.
Content can also be shared among otherwise partitioned networks by any node
that bridges them.

For example, it's easy to create nodes on both the open Internet and the
private Tor OnionCat IPv6 /48\. That should work for any overlay network. And
once nodes on such partitioned networks pin content, outside connections are
irrelevant. Burst sharing is also possible. Using MPTCP with OnionCat, one can
reach 50 Mbps via Tor.[0,1]

0)
[https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmUDV2KHrAgs84oUc7z9zQmZ3whx1NB6YDPv8ZR...](https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmUDV2KHrAgs84oUc7z9zQmZ3whx1NB6YDPv8ZRuf4dutN/)

1)
[https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmSp8p6d3Gxxq1mCVG85jFHMax8pSBzdAyBL2jZ...](https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmSp8p6d3Gxxq1mCVG85jFHMax8pSBzdAyBL2jZxCcCLBL)

------
nathcd
I'd be really curious to hear more about how Goal 2 (a full read/write
wikipedia) could work.

IIRC, writing to the same IPNS address is (or will be?) possible with a
private key, so allowing multiple computers to write to files under an IPNS
address would require distributing the private key for that address?

Also, I wonder how abuse could be dealt with. I've got to imagine that
graffiti and malicious edits would be much more rampant without a central
server to ban IPs. It seems like a much easier (near-term) solution would be a
write-only central server that publishes to an (read-only) IPNS address, where
the load could be distributed over IPFS users.

~~~
cjbprime
I think the real problem with a decentralized read/write Wikipedia is conflict
resolution (conflicting edits). Having a centralized site to handle those is
extremely useful.

~~~
heliumcraft
Those can be handled in a decentralized consensus system such as Ethereum.

~~~
Dylan16807
That's a voting mechanism. How do nodes decide which version to vote for?

~~~
terhechte
There'd be no voting. By using contracts you could simply lock an article
while it is being edited, much like it happens on Wikipedia already. Ethereum
computes all "code" all the time on all nodes and makes sure that all nodes
come to the same result. Thus, you can write one Wikipedia that runs in a
distributed manner while still acting like one centralised application

~~~
cjbprime
That doesn't scale. Any popular article would just be locked all the time.
(How long does my "intention to edit" lock it for?)

~~~
terhechte
I never edit articles on Wikipedia, so I just looked up how it is done there.
The editing users are currently merging the changes. The same could be done
with Ethereum and a contract. (Although it would be a bit tricky right now
because the computational cost of calculating a diff for complex articles
would make the operation expensive).

However, there're a couple of outstanding Ethereum Updates that would make
this process easier and faster. I'd suppose that in around one year it should
be possible to implement this in a fast and cheap way.

Alternatively, one could use 'Whisper', which is Ethereum's 0MQ alternative,
and let multiple users work on the same document at the same time (like Google
Docs or a multitude of other editors).

Ethereum is still a very young project, but it would allow to implement a
truly decentralized Wikipedia.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_conflict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_conflict)
[https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Whisper](https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Whisper)

~~~
duskwuff
> I never edit articles on Wikipedia, so I just looked up how it is done
> there.

I think you've misconstrued how edit conflict resolution works. There is no
"locking" involved.

If two editors both open the same revision of a page and save changes, the
second editor to submit changes may encounter an edit conflict. In most cases,
conflicts are resolved automatically by the wiki engine. If this isn't
possible, the second editor is prompted to merge their changes manually, or to
reapply their changes.

 _This is not a locking mechanism._ Having an article open for editing does
not lock it for future changes; it just records the revision that you started
with to help resolve a conflict, should one arise.

------
TekMol
How is Wikipedia censored in Turkey? Are providers threatened to be punished
if they resolve DNS queries for wikipedia.org? Or are they threatened to be
punished if they transport TCP/IP packets with IPs that belong to Wikipedia?

Wouldn't both be trivial to go around? For DNS, one could simply use a DNS
server outside Turkey. For TCP/IP packets, one could set up a $5 proxy on any
provider from around the world.

~~~
raldu
Yes, it would be trivial to go around. But that's not the point.

It used to be case that people with technical knowledge got around DNS blocks
by simply changing the DNS servers.

Today you cannot access to Wikipedia even with, say, OpenDNS because now some
popular DNS providers are being "hjacked" in Turkey [1]. Yes, hjacking.

The key concern is the fact that an Internet service provider employs an
illegal hacking technique under the pressure of a totalitarian government to
censor the largest and most collaborative information repository of the whole
human history just to cover one article mentioning the truth about that
totalitarianism.

Do not think it is too far of a dystopia for the "more advanced" countries
like U.S., especially with Trump.

[https://bgpmon.net/turkey-hijacking-ip-addresses-for-
popular...](https://bgpmon.net/turkey-hijacking-ip-addresses-for-popular-
global-dns-providers/)

------
eberkund
These distributed file systems are really interesting. I'm curious to know if
there is anything in the works to also distribute the compute and database
engines required to host dynamic content. Something like combining IPFS with
Golem (GNT).

~~~
nannal
I guess this is a chance for me to plug
[https://ipfsstore.it](https://ipfsstore.it)

It was a weekend project I knocked up about a month ago.

In short, you can pay 4 cents a month (in Bitcoin) per gb to have my ipfs node
pin your files.

~~~
goodplay
If I may ask, do those 4 cents include bitcoin's transaction fee? How well
have bitcoin transactions worked for you so far?

I've been pondering starting a cheap service that accepts bitcoin (too cheap
for CCs and not worth the hassle of paypal), but wasn't sure about the
viability of relying on bitcoin as the primary transaction currency.

~~~
nannal
4 cents don't include transaction fee, however payments to the service can be
slow and don't require inclusion in the first block so they can very very
cheap.

Bitcoin transactions in testing have worked perfectly & the display is zero
conf which means you can pay and see that the payment on the hash the minute.

Customer uptake has been lacking for my project, but I believe that's because
I've created something that works really well for two very niche markets
(which fortunately have a lot of overlap.) depending on what your project is,
you can always add a credit system whereby people can dump $5 or something via
credit card and you allocate that to them for them to spend as and when they
need.

~~~
goodplay
Thank you for the detailed response. I don't have any working knowledge on how
bitcoin is practically used as a currency, so your comment provides insight
that's very valuable to someone like me. Zero-confirmation transaction seem
like the perfect solution for an infrequent, low value service that can sink
more than a couple of fraudulent transactions.

You have my thanks!

A note on ipfsstore: while ipfsstore provides a very valuable service for
those who know why such a a service would be used, the website provides no
real information for those who don't already have that prior knowledge. What
little information it has is tucked away on a separate page. I think if you
clearly advertised the primary value that your service provides (offsite data
redundancy/replication) on your landing page, you might see more uptake.

If IPFS and bitcoin ever hit critical mass, I think you'll end up with a
surprisingly lucrative venture on your hands.

------
kibwen
But Wikipedia allows user edits, and so is inherently censorable. You don't
need to block the site, you can just sneak in propaganda a little at a time.

~~~
nemo1618
This highlights an important failure of total lassiez-faire: by restricting or
distorting access to information, you can effect a nefarious result without
violence or even protests. It's like slowly boiling a frog. And it works
especially well in a democracy, where political outcomes are (at least in
principle) determined by those who are most susceptible to information
control.

~~~
emiliobumachar
Off-topic, but the "slowly boiling a frog" myth is false.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog)

~~~
Houshalter
That's true but the metaphor is useful in many places.

~~~
jwilk
Are there any other popular metaphors based on misconceptions?

~~~
thaumasiotes
Ostriches sticking their heads in the ground.

Living fossils.

That prokaryotes are "primitive" life.

Eskimo words for snow.

"Anal" behavior.

Essentially all popular metaphors are based on misconceptions, really.

~~~
Houshalter
Basically everything from this list
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions)

------
treytrey
I'm not sure this thought makes sense, but just putting it out there for
rebuttals and to understand what is really possible:

I assume IPFS networks can be disrupted by a state actor and only thing that a
state actor like the US may have some trouble with is strong encryption. I
assume it's also possible that quantum computers, if and when they materialize
at scale, would defeat classical encryption.

So my point in putting forward these unverified assumptions is to question
whether ANY technology can stand in the way of a determined, major-world-
power-type state actor. Personally, I have no reason to believe that's
realistic, and all these technologies are toys relative to the billions of
dollars in funding that the spy agencies receive.

~~~
Normal_gaussian
It does force the actor to openly be blocking it, which is better than not
knowing in that you now have the potential to effect real change.

~~~
hobofan
Even if openly blocked, the P2P nature allows you to go around any government-
controlled devices, given that the network is strong enough.

------
DonbunEf7
Isn't IPFS censorable? That's the impression I got from this FAQ entry:
[https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/47](https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/47)

~~~
zardo
Each node can choose to host (or not host) whatever it chooses. If that
qualifies as censorship, you can't _not_ practice censorship.

There is no one who can say that something is not allowed on the network _.

_ That's not to say you won't face legal or social consequences, IPFS isn't
anonymous.

~~~
DonbunEf7
Compare and contrast with content-neutral networks, for example; we all like
'Net neutrality, right? But IPFS isn't content-neutral. Or content-oblivious
networks; we all like Tor and I2P, right? But IPFS isn't content-oblivious.

IPFS has all of the tools required for censorious node owners to choose to
block content, and the protocol doesn't have any underlying mitigations. It's
not hard to imagine, especially in places where there's a monopoly of ISPs,
like across large parts of the USA and the Middle East, that IPFS nodes might
be easily isolated and vulnerable to relatively straightforward censorship.

~~~
Jtsummers
Nothing obligates you to use a node which censors. At the same time, a node
you own can't unintentionally (as with Freenet) end up with illegal or
undesirable content.

A tradeoff has to be made. Yes, I censor when I don't pin someone's porn and
serve it off my node. At the same time, I'm not preventing anyone else from
accessing that information.

Another comparison would be to Bittorrent. Given x.torrent, my refusal to
share its contents does, in a sense, make me a censor. But my refusal (unless
I'm the sole possessor of its contents) doesn't prevent anyone else from
sharing it. So the final contents remain uncensored (in the whole).

Hell, even freenet "censors" in that infrequently accessed content will
eventually stop being replicated within the network.

~~~
DonbunEf7
You didn't say "IPFS", which made me realize that your post is largely
repeating the same points in favor of censorship on Usenet.

This is only increasing my confidence that networks which are aware of their
underlying contents are inherently unable to effectively counter censorship,
because individual nodes can always be pressured to drop content, and the
Pareto principle guarantees that this censorship will be effective as long as
the pressure is put on the most popular nodes.

I hear and am sympathetic to your point of view. Google takes a similar stance
with email, Gmail, and spammers; consider, "Yes, Google censors when we don't
relay someone's spam and serve it off our servers. At the same time, we're not
preventing any other mail relays from forwarding that mail." (I'm not speaking
for Google, merely making a rhetorical argument.) This is widely considered a
good thing.

I am merely disappointed that IPFS, which has a lot of backing and is growing
in popularity, may become both the dominant content-addressable distributed
object system, and also remain lacking in terms of anonymity and availability.

(Also, while I am no fan of Freenet, you are equivocating censorship with
cache expiration. One is done by people and one is done by an content-
oblivious algorithm. Tahoe-LAFS's garbage collection works in the same way and
is also not censorship.)

~~~
davidhowlett
In IPFS the user's computer connects to whatever node has the content, popular
or not. This means that even if the the 100 most popular nodes in the world
have enough pressure put on them that they refuse to host a file, I can still
host the file on my laptop and everyone with an internet connection will be
able to access it.

------
Spooky23
Why bother with a technological anti-censorship solution for Wikipedia when
the obvious solution is to just attack the content directly.

If a censoring body wants some information gone, just devote some attention to
lobbying the various gatekeepers in Wikipedia.

------
y7
Does IPFS work properly with Tor these days? Last I checked support was
experimental at best.

Without proper support of an anonymity overlay, using Tor to get around your
government's censor doesn't sound like a very wise idea.

~~~
lgierth
Currently I'd advice against directly running IPFS over Tor or I2P, because
it'll likely leak your IP addresess. OpenBazaar have successfully made it work
as an Onion service, and their work is going to be upstreamed into go-ipfs
soon.

------
pavement
Listen, I get that there are other parts of the world experiencing serious "
_technical difficulties_ " lately...

But I can only read English! Where's the English version?

[https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmT5NvUtoM5nWFfrQdVrFtvGfKFmG7AHE8P34is...](https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmT5NvUtoM5nWFfrQdVrFtvGfKFmG7AHE8P34isapyhCxX/wiki/Anasayfa.html)

This hash doesn't do much for me:

    
    
      QmT5NvUtoM5nWFfrQdVrFtvGfKFmG7AHE8P34isapyhCxX
    

How do I find the version I want?

If I can't read it in my language, it's still censored for me.

~~~
datamonsteryum
As the blog post says, the english version is coming but it's 20x lager than
the Turkish version so it's taking longer to add.

~~~
Kubuxu
To be precise it is 20x larger than (Turkish + Arabic + Kurdish). It is just
big but we will handle it.

------
slitaz
Didn't you mean "unblockable" instead?

~~~
datamonsteryum
Censorship is suppression or prohibition of content. Putting wikipedia on IPFS
makes it strongly resistant to many forms of censorship because it uses
content-addressing. This means that suppressed content can be redistributed
through alternate channels using the same cryptographically verifiable
identifier. It also means that you have clarity about which version of the
content you're viewing, so if some entity publishes a censored version of your
content you have a way to distinguish between the two versions.

If you suppress it in one place, people can put it up somewhere else. If you
block one path, people can make the content available through another path. If
you modify it, people know that you modified it, have clear ways to
distinguish between your copy and the unmodified copy, and can request the
unmodified version without wondering which version they're getting. If you
destroy all the copies on the network, people can add new copies later and all
of the existing links will still work. Etc...

IPFS can't protect people from a government physically tracking down every
copy of the censored content and destroying it -- that requires other efforts
external to the protocol (ie. move copies outside their jurisdiction). It
does, however, make it possible to move many copies of the content around the
world, passing through many hands, serving it through a broad and growing
range of paths, without the content losing integrity.

~~~
threatofrain
Doesn't the scope of your definition also cover cases of academic journals
rejecting low quality? They are in essence censoring mere low quality, not
even falsehoods.

An overly broad scope means that censorship loses its moral oomph.

------
BradyDale
Thanks for sharing this... FWIW, I wrote a story about it on Observer.com
[http://observer.com/2017/05/turkey-wikipedia-
ipfs/](http://observer.com/2017/05/turkey-wikipedia-ipfs/)

------
maaaats
When browsing the content, how does linking work? I mean, don't they kinda
have to link to a hash? But how can they know the hash of a page when the
links of that page are dependent on the other pages and this may be a circle?

~~~
lgierth
It's just simple relative links. If you're in /ipfs/QmPage/wiki/Page.html,
then a link to './OtherPage.html' will result in
/ipfs/QmPage/wiki/OtherPage.html.

~~~
maaaats
Ah, so the hash is for the whole wiki, and not a single page?

Edit, more info here, at part 2
[https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmNhFJjGcMPqpuYfxL62VVB9528NXqDNMFXiqN5...](https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmNhFJjGcMPqpuYfxL62VVB9528NXqDNMFXiqN5bgFYiZ1/its-
time-for-the-permanent-web.html)

~~~
mintplant
Bingo. Then you have IPNS, which uses a public/private key system to broadcast
updates to a mutable hash value. So you can take the IPNS public key for so-
and-so's Wikipedia mirror, query the network for the latest hash signed by the
corresponding private key, and use that hash to fetch content from IPFS.

------
hd4
Maybe a very dumb question, but why didn't they build anonymity into it rather
than advise users to route it over Tor? My guess is it may have something to
do with the Unix philosophy. It's still a great tool regardless.

~~~
whyrusleeping
Building anonymity into a tool is not trivial. Doing it right is _very hard_.
Doing it right also has significant drawbacks in terms of performance for
people who don't need anonyminity. Tor is a great, well studied and well
supported way for people to browse anonymously, so yeah, definitely a bit of
the unix philosophy in there. That said, we plan on building anonymity tooling
into ipfs in the future, its just non-trivial.

~~~
lgierth
@whyrusleeping is right, and adding to that, there's a work-in-progress Onion
transport which is already being used by OpenBazaar in their fork of go-ipfs.

The respective work on making IPFS's routing work safely in an anonymous use
case will be upstreamed soon.

------
LoSboccacc
> In short, content on IPFS is harder to attack and easier to distribute
> because it’s peer-to-peer and decentralized.

> port 4001 is what swarm port IPFS uses to communicate with other nodes

uhm.

~~~
Kubuxu
And it can be any other port, any other transport that is implemented/there
are adapters for and so on.

~~~
LoSboccacc
and how do you find peers then?

~~~
Kubuxu
Same way Torrent protocol does and with mDNS.

~~~
LoSboccacc
mDNS traffic is very easy to pick and filter. probably you're thinking dht,
but even then, you can block the primed node list or just ask any other client
which ip are on the network and block those.

this is not the average sysad we're talking, it's a state actor with access to
all local isps resources.

~~~
whyrusleeping
Yes, DHT, mdns (for local nets), and manual connections via `ipfs swarm
connect`. You can get a peers address through any other open means of
communication, connect to them, and then through them, get other peers
information. All it takes is one good node

------
captn3m0
The SSL cert chain is broken for me.

~~~
lgierth
What client and error? Works here and ssllabs.com has always turned up good
results.

Maybe it's the fact it's (still) a StartSSL cert?

~~~
wyldfire
Yes, that's probably it. [1]

[1] [https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2016/10/24/distrusting-
new...](https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2016/10/24/distrusting-new-wosign-
and-startcom-certificates/)

------
amelius
Sounds good, but isn't this a fork of Wikipedia?

~~~
sudhirj
It's a mirror.

~~~
amelius
In wikipedia, you can view the history of each article by just clicking the
"View history" tab. So what exactly is new here?

~~~
roywiggins
This works even if your ISP is blocking wikipedia.org.

~~~
amelius
Then you can use Tor. Bonus: it works for other websites too.

------
forvelin
At this moment, it is enough to use Google DNS or some VPN to reach Wikipedia
in Turkey. This is good case, but IPFS is just an overkill.

~~~
alwillis
Lets not forget that after Trump was inaugurated, lots of data regarding
climate change started to be removed from government controlled websites.

As we know, lots of scientists backed up lots of that data; IPFS would have
been a great way to backup and distribute the data.

~~~
dredmorbius
The bottleneck wasn't accessing the data once it had been archived, but
archiving it in the first place.

Both source and capture bandwidth are finite resources. Several people with
considerable infrastructure (a friend in Finland working at a major network
provider is among the archivists) were supporting the effort. The limit is how
quickly they can peel data _off the source._

A few station wagons (or SUVs) full of SATA or Blu-RAY drives might be even
more useful.

------
awqrre
until they create laws...

------
davidcollantes
Will it be available if the domain (ipfs.io) stops resolving, gets seised or
is blocked?

~~~
lgierth
Through IPFS yes -- the blog post describes how to, among other things.

------
devsigner
Here it is on Archive.is just for good measure and posterity purposes:
[https://archive.is/GnjGT](https://archive.is/GnjGT)

------
onetwoname
How about you remove all the lies from wikipedia, the lies curated by CIA. No?
Oh, right, I forgot you only make the illusion of justice.

