841
The AI company Perplexity is complaining their bots can't bypass Cloudflare's firewall (www.searchenginejournal.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
229 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

Site owners currently do and should have the freedom to decide who is and is not allowed to access the data, and to decide for what purpose it gets used for. Idgaf if you think scraping is malicious or not, it is and should be illegal to violate clear and obvious barriers against them at the cost of the owners and unsanctioned profit of the scrapers off of the work of the site owners.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    to decide for what purpose it gets used for

    Yeah, fuck everything about that. If I'm a site visitor I should be able to do what I want with the data you send me. If I bypass your ads, or use your words to write a newspaper article that you don't like, tough shit. Publishing information is choosing not to control what happens to the information after it leaves your control.

    Don't like it? Make me sign an NDA. And even then, violating an NDA isn't a crime, much less a felony punishable by years of prison time.

    Interpreting the CFAA to cover scraping is absurd and draconian.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (8 children)

    If you want anybody and everyone to be able to use everything you post for any purpose, right on, good for you, but don't try to force your morality on others who rely on their writing, programming, and artworks to make a living to survive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I'm gonna continue to use ad blockers and yt-dlp, and if you think I'm a criminal for doing so, I'm gonna say you don't understand either technology or criminal law.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Thats a crime yeah and if Alphabet co wants to sue you for $1.34 damages then they have that right, just as we should have the right to sue them if their AI crawlers make our site unusable and plagiarize our work to the effect of thousands of dollars, or even press charges for the criminal act of intentional disruption of services.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Thats a crime yeah and if Alphabet co wants to sue you for $1.34 damages then they have that right

    So yeah, I stand by my statement that anyone thinks this is a crime, or should be a crime, has a poor understanding of either the technology or the law. In this case, even mentioning Alphabet suing for damages means that you don't know the difference between criminal law and civil law.

    press charges for the criminal act of intentional disruption of services

    That's not a crime, and again reveals gaps in your knowledge on this topic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    That is actually a crime, you will get prison for DDoS in USA, UK, and EU. Presumably you will disappear if you do it in China.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    you will get prison for DDoS in USA

    Who said anything about DDoS? I'm using ad blockers and saving/caching/archiving websites with a single computer, and not causing damage. I'm just using the website in a way the owner doesn't like. That's not a crime, nor should it be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    press charges for the criminal act of intentional disruption of services

    That’s not a crime, and again reveals gaps in your knowledge on this topic.

    We did

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You were talking about $1.34 in damages, which doesn't sound like downtime or disruption.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    You appear to have misread

    just as we should have the right to sue them if their AI crawlers make our site unusable and plagiarize our work to the effect of thousands of dollars, or even press charges for the criminal act of intentional disruption of services.

    YOU caused google lost ad revenue

    GOOGLE's Crawlers have crippled sites

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent