Most mass scrapers, on the other hand, simply grab the raw HTML underneath. ShieldFont exploits this difference through an automated process called OpenType glyph substitution.

That said, because the whole defense rests on scrapers reading code rather than screens, taking a screenshot of a shielded page and running OCR on the image can still recover the real words.

Screen readers used by blind readers also work from the code, so they read the decoys aloud. ShieldFont ships with a beta feature that provides those readers with the real text instead.

all 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 114 points 3 months ago (9 children)

does this also block blind people who depend on an e-reader?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 75 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Per the article, yes:

    Screen readers used by blind readers also work from the code, so they read the decoys aloud.

    But:

    ShieldFont ships with a beta feature that provides those readers with the real text instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 78 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    ShieldFont ships with a beta feature that provides those readers with the real text instead.

    AI scrappers will just pretend to be screen readers then.

    And if the approach becomes popular they will just OCR the text instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    AI scrappers will just pretend to be screen readers then

    There's a fair chance they're already doing that. It provides better insight on the content, less formatting to handle, and even visual stuff gets text alternatives.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    It is also very easy to detect surprising text by looking at the perplexity levels by feeding it to a very small model. If there's a problem, OCR/'screen read' it instead..

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago

    screen reader, SEO, indexation, in page search, etc.

    Basically, it breaks everything except people… unless they block/substitute fonts for accessibility reasons, in which case fuck people too.

    This is a terrible idea, and it won't even achieve it's original "purpose" as it is trivially detectable. Only negatives in this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    it does, unless the reader has an OCR mode of sorts

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago

    Yes, the decoy text is marked aria-hidden, so it won't be read out loud. The real text is sent to the browser encrypted, and the decryption process takes ~20 seconds, roughly the same as running ocr.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 63 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    If this gets any adoption, it will work for about a week, after which scrapers will just detect the font, and do a reverse lookup of its mapping table.

    Ironic that the repo of the font is also AI slop. If the author had asked any competent person how viable the solution is, instead of a sycophantic AI, they would have just gotten a laugh instead.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 75 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    DRM is suddenly popular and people think it will work this time.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -36 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I bet you could even get some foaming-at-the-mouth anti-AI activists to endorse Israel's right to resist if Israel decides to ban all AI. Worth a thought, Bibi.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    What a laughable strawman from a coglover. On the contrary LLM lovers will happily give money to techbro oligarchs who directly supports Trump and Israel. They will also eagerly burn down the planet just for the sake of some sloppy code.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 62 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    A terrible idea that will hinder everyone and not serve it's original purpose in a flash.

    • anything that parse the page is broken, this includes screen reader, but also indexing, searching, and people that replace fonts locally for accessibility or other reasons
    • the "solution" for accessibility is pure trash
    • it can be trivially detected and reversed. I suspect LLM would be incredibly better at adapting to this than anything done manually too

    It's basically a kid playing with "encrypshun" client-side, giving both the cipher and the key to the client and hoping it'll work. Or, as other put it, DRM that don't work for any of its original purpose, but create an additional layer of complexity and missing features, a common trend in modern projects.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 3 months ago

    I want to follow that project. The only thing that I don't like is how heavily reliant the person who runs the github is on AI-gen

    Normally, I don't really care about it because I know that it's something that is just a part of the industry now, but they're using it even on their responses to people on the issue requests, and it's to the point where it's hurting my head trying to read it due to how drawn out and detailed it ends up being.

    It's really hard to follow along a project where something as simple as someone opening an issue about how it doesn't work with screen readers turns into a multi paragraph essay about the project and possibilities on how it works.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    When is Anubis useful (eg vs CloudFlare)? The GitHub page doesn't say much-

    In most cases, you should not need this and can probably get by using Cloudflare to protect a given origin. However, for circumstances where you can't or won't use Cloudflare, Anubis is there for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Protection through obfuscation is not real protection. This has been an ongoing thing in the security world and is especially relevant for software. All obfuscation does is protect you from script kiddies (which AI isnt) and make the actual process slower for legitimate users. Like all DRM it only really hurts the people legitimately using your software.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    This isn't about securing sites or content. It is just for poisoning the data AI scrapers steal by obfuscating the readily accessible information.

    If you read the article or the ShieldFont website, it works pretty well when you use their React widget, even from an accessibility stand point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Someone needs to tell Sxan about this

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    White knights already complain about screen readers being too stupid to interpret Thorns, while simultaneously claiming Thorns don't fool AI because it's trivial for software to replace it. ¯\(ツ)/¯

    I can't imagine þe sort of hate I'd get from using homography.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    If the underlying text says one thing but the font makes it appear to say something else, which version does the author own the copyright to?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Who cares if gibberish text is copyrighted? Putting your work in a funky text doesn’t make what you wrote no longer copyrighted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    Say someone else takes the visual result of the font’s output and re-posts it as plain text.

    If anyone searches for that text, their version will come up as the first (and only) published version. Anyone who tries to reference it will cite their version instead of yours. You’d have to convince the court that a clearly different text you published earlier is really the same thing, as long as you view it with a special font that magically transforms it into the text you’re trying to claim—the judge would just as likely think you’re a copyright troll.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I’m not sure who told you posting things online is how you prove copyright, but it’s not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    You entirely sidestepped the scenario and issue. In the example given, the copyrighted work is being produced directly onto a medium that obfuscates its provenance, literally. Yet, gives an opening for another to publish it in such a way, that they could claim it's their copyrighted work. They would be lying, and they would be wrong, but then you would have to prove to a body composed of ancient mummies who uphold an ancient code, why one of the few ways they thought they understood technology and codified into their verification process, isn't actually showing them the truth this time. Do you know how to defend a copyright claim?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    they really cooked with that video, got me more excited than with most trailers

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)