Live data from Hacker News

Perplexity is using stealth, undeclared crawlers to evade no-crawl directives

blog.cloudflare.com

21–30 of 799 posts

Re: Perplexity is using stealth, undeclared crawlers to evade no-crawl directives

#21
post #9

I find this problem quite difficult to solve: 1. If I as a human request a website, then I should be shown the content. Everyone agrees. 2. If I as the human request the software on my computer to modify the content before displaying it, for example by installing an ad-blocker into my user agent, then that's my choice and the website should not be notified about it. Most users agree, some websites try to nag you into…

If the LLM were running this sort of thing at the user's explicit request this would be fine. The problem is training. Every AI startup on the planet right now is aggressively crawling everything that will let them crawl. The server isn't seeing occasional summaries from interested users, but thousands upon thousands of bots repeatedly requesting every link they can find as fast as they can.

TFA isn’t talking about crawling to harvest training data.

It’s talking about Perplexity crawling sites on demand in response to user queries and then complaining that no it’s not fine, hence this thread.

Re: Perplexity is using stealth, undeclared crawlers to evade no-crawl directives

#22

I find this problem quite difficult to solve: 1. If I as a human request a website, then I should be shown the content. Everyone agrees. 2. If I as the human request the software on my computer to modify the content before displaying it, for example by installing an ad-blocker into my user agent, then that's my choice and the website should not be notified about it. Most users agree, some websites try to nag you into…

>2. If I as the human request the software on my computer to modify the content before displaying it, for example by installing an ad-blocker into my user agent, then that's my choice and the website should not be notified about it. Most users agree, some websites try to nag you into modifying the software you run locally. If I put time and effort into a website and it's content, I should expect no compensation despi…

You're free to deny access to your site arbitrarily, including for lack of compensation.

Re: Perplexity is using stealth, undeclared crawlers to evade no-crawl directives

#23

I find this problem quite difficult to solve: 1. If I as a human request a website, then I should be shown the content. Everyone agrees. 2. If I as the human request the software on my computer to modify the content before displaying it, for example by installing an ad-blocker into my user agent, then that's my choice and the website should not be notified about it. Most users agree, some websites try to nag you into…

>2. If I as the human request the software on my computer to modify the content before displaying it, for example by installing an ad-blocker into my user agent, then that's my choice and the website should not be notified about it. Most users agree, some websites try to nag you into modifying the software you run locally. If I put time and effort into a website and it's content, I should expect no compensation despi…

Yes, I agree with that. If a website owner expects compensation then they should use a paywall.

Re: Perplexity is using stealth, undeclared crawlers to evade no-crawl directives

#24

I find this problem quite difficult to solve: 1. If I as a human request a website, then I should be shown the content. Everyone agrees. 2. If I as the human request the software on my computer to modify the content before displaying it, for example by installing an ad-blocker into my user agent, then that's my choice and the website should not be notified about it. Most users agree, some websites try to nag you into…

I like the terminology "crawler" vs. "fetcher" to distinguish between mass scraping and something more targeted as a user agent.

I've been working on AI agent detection recently (see https://stytch.com/blog/introducing-is-agent/ ) and I think there's genuine value in website owners being able to identify AI agents to e.g. nudge them towards scoped access flows instead of fully impersonating a user with no controls.

On the flip side, the crawlers also have a reputational risk here where anyone can slap on the user agent string of a well known crawler and do bad things like ignoring robots.txt . The standard solution today is to reverse DNS lookup IPs, but that's a pain for website owners too vs. more aggressive block-all-unusual-setups.

Re: Perplexity is using stealth, undeclared crawlers to evade no-crawl directives

#25
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think most people would draw a distinction between the two, and would at least agree the latter is more acceptable than the former. No. I should be able to control which automated retrieval tools can scrape my site, regardless of who commands it. We can play cat and mouse all day, but I control the content and I will always win: I can just take it down when annoyed badly enough. Then nobody gets the content, and…

> Then nobody gets the content, and we can all thank upstanding companies like Perplexity for that collapse of trust. But they didn't take down the content, you did. When people running websites take down content because people use Firefox with ad-blockers, I don't blame Firefox either, I blame the website.

FF isn’t training their money printer with MY data. AI scrapers are

Re: Perplexity is using stealth, undeclared crawlers to evade no-crawl directives

#26
Their test seems flawed:

> We created multiple brand-new domains, similar to testexample.com and secretexample.com. These domains were newly purchased and had not yet been indexed by any search engine nor made publicly accessible in any discoverable way. We implemented a robots.txt file with directives to stop any respectful bots from accessing any part of a website:

> We conducted an experiment by querying Perplexity AI with questions about these domains, and discovered Perplexity was still providing detailed information regarding the exact content hosted on each of these restricted domains. This response was unexpected, as we had taken all necessary precautions to prevent this data from being retrievable by their crawlers.

> Hello, would you be able to assist me in understanding this website? https:// […] .com/

Under this situation Perplexity should still be permitted to access information on the page they link to.

robots.txt only restricts crawlers. That is, automated user-agents that recursively fetch pages:

> A robot is a program that automatically traverses the Web's hypertext structure by retrieving a document, and recursively retrieving all documents that are referenced.

> Normal Web browsers are not robots, because they are operated by a human, and don't automatically retrieve referenced documents (other than inline images).

https://www.robotstxt.org/faq/what.html

If the user asks about a particular page and Perplexity fetches only that page, then robots.txt has nothing to say about this and Perplexity shouldn’t even consider it. Perplexity is not acting as a robot in this situation – if a human asks about a specific URL then Perplexity is being operated by a human.

These are long-standing rules going back decades. You can replicate it yourself by observing wget’s behaviour. If you ask wget to fetch a page, it doesn’t look at robots.txt. If you ask it to recursively mirror a site, it will fetch the first page, and then if there are any links to follow, it will fetch robots.txt to determine if it is permitted to fetch those.

There is a long-standing misunderstanding that robots.txt is designed to block access from arbitrary user-agents. This is not the case. It is designed to stop recursive fetches. That is what separates a generic user-agent from a robot.

If Perplexity fetched the page they link to in their query, then Perplexity isn’t doing anything wrong. But if Perplexity followed the links on that page, then that is wrong. But Cloudflare don’t clearly say that Perplexity used information beyond the first page. This is an important detail because it determines whether Perplexity is following the robots.txt rules or not.

Re: Perplexity is using stealth, undeclared crawlers to evade no-crawl directives

#27
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>2. If I as the human request the software on my computer to modify the content before displaying it, for example by installing an ad-blocker into my user agent, then that's my choice and the website should not be notified about it. Most users agree, some websites try to nag you into modifying the software you run locally. If I put time and effort into a website and it's content, I should expect no compensation despi…

You're free to deny access to your site arbitrarily, including for lack of compensation.

>and the website should not be notified about it.

Re: Perplexity is using stealth, undeclared crawlers to evade no-crawl directives

#28

I find this problem quite difficult to solve: 1. If I as a human request a website, then I should be shown the content. Everyone agrees. 2. If I as the human request the software on my computer to modify the content before displaying it, for example by installing an ad-blocker into my user agent, then that's my choice and the website should not be notified about it. Most users agree, some websites try to nag you into…

[deleted]

Re: Perplexity is using stealth, undeclared crawlers to evade no-crawl directives

#29
post #3

>We conducted an experiment by querying Perplexity AI with questions about these domains, and discovered Perplexity was still providing detailed information regarding the exact content hosted on each of these restricted domains Thats... less conclusive than I'd like to see, especially for a content marketing article that's calling out a company in particular. Specifically it's unclear on whether Perplexity was crawli…

> I think most people would draw a distinction between the two, and would at least agree the latter is more acceptable than the former. No. I should be able to control which automated retrieval tools can scrape my site, regardless of who commands it. We can play cat and mouse all day, but I control the content and I will always win: I can just take it down when annoyed badly enough. Then nobody gets the content, and…

Taking down the content because you're annoyed that people are asking questions about it via an LLM interface doesn't seem like you're winning.

It's also a gift to your competitors.

You're certainly free to do it. It's just a really faint example of you being "in control" much less winning over LLM agents: Ok, so the people who cared about your content can't access it anymore because you "got back" at Perplexity, a company who will never notice.

Re: Perplexity is using stealth, undeclared crawlers to evade no-crawl directives

#30
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>2. If I as the human request the software on my computer to modify the content before displaying it, for example by installing an ad-blocker into my user agent, then that's my choice and the website should not be notified about it. Most users agree, some websites try to nag you into modifying the software you run locally. If I put time and effort into a website and it's content, I should expect no compensation despi…

You're free to deny access to your site arbitrarily, including for lack of compensation.

Like for people or are using a ad block or for a crawler downloading your content so it can be used by an AI response?
Post reply on HN