Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

browser-use.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 251 posts

Re: How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

#41

Post by sroussey »

joatmon-snoo wrote: post #28
embedding-shape wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems very unethical, no? Who uses service providers like this? The whole point of anti-bot measures is to get rid of bots - you are not wanted there. Unethical just because it does something someone else doesn't want? I guess it depends on why and what the intention is. I don't have time to sit 24/7 in front of a computer to get a ticket to some events, does that mean it's unethical for me to use my own bot so I c…

An example I ran into recently: I wanted to scrape pricing data for used cars, to better inform a friend's decision about what to purchase. I know there's a relationship between mileage and depreciation, but wanted to have a better sense of what that relationship is to know whether a given car was over or underpriced. Similarly, if I was pulling that data to build a service of my own to offer to users... is that unet…

All of these questions are easily answered by the question: can I run the bot on the same PC I use regularly? If so, then do it there. If not, then don’t do it at all.

Re: How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

#42

Post by zuzululu »

losteric wrote: post #9

> Plain headless Chromium is easy to detect by websites with anti-bot measures. Plain headless Chromium avoided getting blocked by websites only 2% of the time, according to our stealth benchmark. > Our browsers avoid blocks 81% of the time on our stealth benchmark, and 84.8% on Halluminate BrowserBench, the highest of any provider. Seems very unethical, no? Who uses service providers like this? The whole point of an…

Once again I'd like to remind that violating Terms of Service isn't the same as violating some moral ethics. They are literally just expectations with no enforceable or legal boundaries.

For example I could write in my Terms of Service that you do not view more than one page on my website and expect you to send me a written permission to read the rest. I don't expect anybody to follow and I sure don't think less of those that do.

The push for verified IDs is not related to this, its more of a politically motivated attempt at selling fear to justify more surveillance.

Re: How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

#44

Post by mikeocool »

losteric wrote: post #9

> Plain headless Chromium is easy to detect by websites with anti-bot measures. Plain headless Chromium avoided getting blocked by websites only 2% of the time, according to our stealth benchmark. > Our browsers avoid blocks 81% of the time on our stealth benchmark, and 84.8% on Halluminate BrowserBench, the highest of any provider. Seems very unethical, no? Who uses service providers like this? The whole point of an…

Whether or not scrapping publically available websites is unethical is probably up for debate. In some cases at least, courts have found it to be legal, even when the site is throwing up technical barriers or issues cease and desists.

What is likely unethical is the fact that they offer residential proxies. The residential providers of those proxies are frequently not aware they’ve been opted in to provide such a service.

Re: How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

#45

Post by _pdp_ »

rbbydotdev wrote: post #5

crazy that the maker of chrome(google) and also the owner of a massive amount of cloud services has not made a cloud product identical to this yet

not google but cloudflare has a similar product - though I am not sure how good it is

Re: How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

#46

Post by sroussey »

kevmo314 wrote: post #15
gozzoo wrote: post #13

The article doesn't mention docker at all. I don't understand why containers are not viable solution for headless browsers.

Their competitive advantage is not so much running the browser but rather making the browser undetectable. They boast a large residential proxy network too, which tells you all you need to know.

Yeah, where is the blog post on the residential network?

Re: How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

#47

Post by turtlebits »

embedding-shape wrote: post #21
losteric wrote: post #9

> Plain headless Chromium is easy to detect by websites with anti-bot measures. Plain headless Chromium avoided getting blocked by websites only 2% of the time, according to our stealth benchmark. > Our browsers avoid blocks 81% of the time on our stealth benchmark, and 84.8% on Halluminate BrowserBench, the highest of any provider. Seems very unethical, no? Who uses service providers like this? The whole point of an…

> Seems very unethical, no? Who uses service providers like this? The whole point of anti-bot measures is to get rid of bots - you are not wanted there. Unethical just because it does something someone else doesn't want? I guess it depends on why and what the intention is. I don't have time to sit 24/7 in front of a computer to get a ticket to some events, does that mean it's unethical for me to use my own bot so I c…

Its unethical because you're intentionally bypassing restrictions. Just because others do it doesn't mean its okay.

If you saw a sign in a store that said "1 per person" or "for registered guests only", would you ignore it?

Re: How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

#48

Post by embedding-shape »

turtlebits wrote: post #47
embedding-shape wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems very unethical, no? Who uses service providers like this? The whole point of anti-bot measures is to get rid of bots - you are not wanted there. Unethical just because it does something someone else doesn't want? I guess it depends on why and what the intention is. I don't have time to sit 24/7 in front of a computer to get a ticket to some events, does that mean it's unethical for me to use my own bot so I c…

Its unethical because you're intentionally bypassing restrictions. Just because others do it doesn't mean its okay. If you saw a sign in a store that said "1 per person" or "for registered guests only", would you ignore it?

> Its unethical because you're intentionally bypassing restrictions

I'd still consider why the restriction is there and why I'm thinking of breaking it, before deciding if it's unethical or not.

It depends, basically. Generally I follow the rules and restrictions, but maybe see them more as guidelines or suggestions.

Re: How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

#49

Post by [deleted] »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #22
losteric wrote: post #9

> Plain headless Chromium is easy to detect by websites with anti-bot measures. Plain headless Chromium avoided getting blocked by websites only 2% of the time, according to our stealth benchmark. > Our browsers avoid blocks 81% of the time on our stealth benchmark, and 84.8% on Halluminate BrowserBench, the highest of any provider. Seems very unethical, no? Who uses service providers like this? The whole point of an…

(I haven't tried this out yet.) My use case would be to take a snapshot of each HN story. This is surprisingly hard, because most websites prevent bots from doing that. For example, Claude has a lot of trouble reading HN's front page. HN itself is fine, but the moment you ask it to pick out an article, it often chokes. The website has put up a verification captcha, or it's a paywall, etc. Paywalls can be bypassed by…

[deleted]

Re: How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

#50

Post by orf »

turtlebits wrote: post #47
embedding-shape wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems very unethical, no? Who uses service providers like this? The whole point of anti-bot measures is to get rid of bots - you are not wanted there. Unethical just because it does something someone else doesn't want? I guess it depends on why and what the intention is. I don't have time to sit 24/7 in front of a computer to get a ticket to some events, does that mean it's unethical for me to use my own bot so I c…

Its unethical because you're intentionally bypassing restrictions. Just because others do it doesn't mean its okay. If you saw a sign in a store that said "1 per person" or "for registered guests only", would you ignore it?

Was Rosa Parks unethical for sitting down on a bus?

The point is that the context matters: both the users context and the context of the restriction. It’s not as clear cut as “ignoring restrictions = bad”.

The restriction itself can be unethical, in the same way that bypassing a restriction can be unethical.

Post reply on HN