Talk:12ft

Why is 12 ft down?

Why is the site down? Do you think it’ll come back? 174.215.178.77 (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

451: UNAVAILABLE_FOR_LEGAL_REASONS

The website's error message is now "451: UNAVAILABLE_FOR_LEGAL_REASONS". Can we just cite the 12ft.io website, or is a separate source required? Dodecahedron123 (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

External links modified (September 2025)

Hello fellow editors,

I have just modified 6 external links on 12ft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20250720085139/https://news.sky.com/story/paywall-breaking-tool-12ft-asks-users-to-subscribe-to-cover-costs-12536304 to https://news.sky.com/story/paywall-breaking-tool-12ft-asks-users-to-subscribe-to-cover-costs-12536304
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20240513162151/https://twitter.com/rauchg/status/1718680650067460138 to https://twitter.com/rauchg/status/1718680650067460138
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20250903065101/https://www.theverge.com/news/709209/news-media-alliance-12ft-io-takedown-paywall to https://www.theverge.com/news/709209/news-media-alliance-12ft-io-takedown-paywall
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20250819063143/https://alternativeto.net/software/12ft-ladder/ to https://alternativeto.net/software/12ft-ladder/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20250831022840/https://txtify.it/ to https://txtify.it/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20250906120213/https://www.printfriendly.com/ to https://www.printfriendly.com/

Please refer to the FaQ for information on correcting errors with the bot.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Alternatives section

I'm curious, is it standard and acceptable for Wikipedia to have an "Alternatives" section? Wikipedia is not censored, except in accordance with US laws, since that's where servers are located. But it also doesn't violate laws or practices just for funzies. This seems on the edge. I don't mind, of course. I found it quite helpful, PrintFriendly seems great. IDK, perhaps it could be rephrased at least to sound less like a how to. Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Mass removal

@IgelRM: Your recent reverting diff removing the majority of the article is too complicated to figure out. Please explain the mass removal.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Grorp: Sorry for the extra trouble you had but I had already rewritten the article before you to solve the citation issue. Just an anon reverted it without comment if you look at the page history, which is just as annoying. In my view, the citations for the outage section are insufficient and the section is WP:UNDUE and WP:Original research. IgelRM (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't find it undue, because it explained how/why the website got shut down. How about you leave it until the AfD discussion is completed.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Bad outage history source (UpDownToday)

The outage history added in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=12ft&diff=prev&oldid=1337788800 is clearly inaccurate as there were consistent captures by the Wayback Machine until 2025-07: https://web.archive.org/web/20250713174441/https://12ft.io/. This paragraph should likely be removed or rewritten with better sources. Galen8183 (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=12ft&diff=prev&oldid=1352209921, the end date is already mentioned early on.

UpDownToday is clearly an unreliable source, giving bad data for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BlogTalkRadio&diff=prev&oldid=1352209698 as well. Galen8183 (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The user deleted a paragraphs, claiming that UpDownToday is a bad source for outage history. The user provides a Wayback Machine link from July 2025, even though the paragraph clearly stated that 12ft was unavailable in December (not July). It can also be observed that the user has a new account, and all the edits made were minor, except for two paragraphs in different articles, from which the user removed information about UpDownToday. In my opinion, this appears to be an act of bad-faith competition. ~2026-28416-38 (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

> "[...] even though the paragraph clearly stated that 12ft was unavailable in December (not July)."

Yes, the bad source reported this incorrect date (not even, it reported the last available date as March 2024). As I already mentioned, earlier in the article says "On July 17, 2025, the News Media Alliance reported that it had taken down the website". I corroborated this date with the Wayback Machine having suddenly stopped capturing four days earlier.

The sources that published articles about the takedown also confirm the final date of availability as July 14th, 2025. See also the NMA's own post on the subject: https://www.newsmediaalliance.org/takedown-of-12ftio/

Please try to do a little bit of supporting research before claiming someone is acting in bad faith. Galen8183 (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

There is no need to make edits in areas you do not understand. Services such as UpDownToday, Downdetector, IsItDownRightNow, and similar platforms operate ONLY based on user requests. In other words, a user visits the service, submits a request, and the service then attempts to access the requested page and returns results including status, response code, and ping.

None of these services continuously send requests to websites, as this could be interpreted as an attempt to perform a DDoS attack. Therefore, the data provided by UpDownToday is FACTUAL for the SPECIFIED DATE at the time the check was performed.

Please try to do at least a little research before claiming that a particular source is clearly unreliable or provides inaccurate data. ~2026-28789-17 (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm well aware how these services tend to operate.

> [...] the data provided by UpDownToday is FACTUAL for the SPECIFIED DATE at the time the check was performed

Maybe, but either way it doesn't provide any useful information for this article when multiple reputable sources report the exact takedown date. I don't agree though that it provides clear data, it counted a domain seller's landing page as "available" for the given domain. That's not what "available" means in this context. Galen8183 (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Please read the Template:Disputed inline documentation. The notice should remain until consensus is reached in the talk page (this discussion). Galen8183 (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)