Scroll down. Archive.today can archive things other services can't. That's why Wikipedia was in a panic about the verifiability crisis removing their 700 000 links would cause. Most can't be replaced.

Okay, I'm just gonna explain where I'm at with this right now and why.

This isn't a huge issue for this community but for our hard news discussion communities, abandoning archive.today would instantly make a large amount of news inaccessible (probably 1/3 or more, but that's just a guess) to the vast majority. It could limit being fully informed to those with means. That would suck. It's a real harm.

We're in agreement that archive.today is problematic. We really need a working alternative. The ddos attack is shitty and immature. It's a betrayal of trust. However, the victim stated in the Ars article you linked to that this hasn't really had any discernible impact on them. So for now it's a theoretical harm (and an abhorrent practice) vs a real harm.

For me, as it stands now, I'll use alternatives where I can and use archive.today where I can't because I care a lot about that harm. I'll be ecstatic when a real alternative emerges. Like Wikipedia fell into different camps, we're probably similar. I respect that you come down on this differently, but that's where I'm at with this.