111–120 of 234 posts
>These were scrapers, and they were most likely trying to non-consensually collect content for training LLMs. "Non-consensually", as if you had to ask for permission to perform a GET request to an open HTTP server. Yes, I know about weev. That was a travesty.
>These were scrapers, and they were most likely trying to non-consensually collect content for training LLMs. "Non-consensually", as if you had to ask for permission to perform a GET request to an open HTTP server. Yes, I know about weev. That was a travesty.
If I set out a bowl of candy for ticker treaters, I wouldn't expect to be okay with the first adult strolling by and taking everything.
>These were scrapers, and they were most likely trying to non-consensually collect content for training LLMs. "Non-consensually", as if you had to ask for permission to perform a GET request to an open HTTP server. Yes, I know about weev. That was a travesty.
The problem is that serving content costs money. Llm scraping is essentially ddos'ing content meant for human consumption. Ddos'ing sucks.
>These were scrapers, and they were most likely trying to non-consensually collect content for training LLMs. "Non-consensually", as if you had to ask for permission to perform a GET request to an open HTTP server. Yes, I know about weev. That was a travesty.
If I set out a bowl of candy for ticker treaters, I wouldn't expect to be okay with the first adult strolling by and taking everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's absolutely a legal concept of making your work available for viewing without making it available for copying This "legal concept" is enforceable through legacy systems of police and violence. The internet does not recognize it. How much more obvious can this get? If we stumble down the path of attempting to apply this legal framework, won't some jurisdiction arise with no IP protections whatsoever and just…
> legacy systems of police and violence You use "legacy" as if these systems are obsolete and on their way out. They're not. They're here to stay, and will remain dominant, for better or worse. Calling them "legacy" feels a bit childish, as if you're trying to ignore reality and base arguments on your preferred vision of how things should be. > The internet does not recognize it. Sure it does. Not universally, but th…
> You use "legacy" as if these systems are obsolete and on their way out. They're not.
I have serious doubts that nation states will still exist in 500 years. I feel quite certain that they'll be gone in 10,000. And I think it's generally good to build an internet for those time scales.
> base arguments on your preferred vision of how things should be.
I hope we all build toward our moral compass; I don't mean for arguments to fall into fallacies on this basis, but yeah I think our internet needs to resilient against the waxing and waning of the affairs of state. I don't know if that's childish... Maybe we need to have a more child-like view of things? The internet _is_ a child in the sense of its maturation timeframe.
> there are a lot of things governments and law enforcement can do to control what people see and do on the internet.
Of course there are things that governments do. But are they effective? I just returned from a throatsinging retreat in Tuva - a fairly remote part of Siberia. The Russian government has apparently quietly begun to censor quite a few resources on the internet, and it has caused difficulty in accessing the traditional music of the Tuvan people. And I was very happily astonished to find that everybody to whom I ran into, including a shaman grandmother, was fairly adept at routing around this censorship using a VPN and/or SSH tunnel.
I think the internet is doing a wonderful job at routing around censorship - better than any innovation ever discovered by humans so far.
> Any other country would immediately slap economic sanctions on that free-for-all jurisdiction and cripple them. If that fails, there's always a military response they can resort to.
Again, maybe I'm just more optimistic, but I think that on longer time frames, the sober elder statesmen/women will prevail and realize that violence is not an appropriate response to bytes transiting the wire that they wish weren't.
And at the end of the day, I don't think governments even have the power here - the content creators do. I distribute my music via free channels because that's the easiest way to reach my audience, and because, given the high availability of compelling free content, there's just no way I can make enough money on publishing to even concern myself with silly restrictions.
It seems to me that I'm ahead of the curve in this area, not behind it. But I'm certainly open to being convinced otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People need to have a better mental model of what it means to host a public web site, and what they are actually doing when they run the web server and point it at a directory of files. They're not just serving those files to customers. They're not just serving them to members. They're not just serving them to human beings. They're not even necessarily serving files to web browsers. They're serving files to every IP…
> They're serving files to every IP address (no matter what machine is attached to it) that is capable of opening a socket and sending GET. Legally in the US a “public” web server can have any set of usage restrictions it feels like even without a login screen. Private property doesn’t automatically give permission to do anything even if there happens to be a driveway from the public road into the middle of it. The l…
In the real world, these requests are being made, and servers are generating responses. So the way to change that is to change the logic of the servers.
>These were scrapers, and they were most likely trying to non-consensually collect content for training LLMs. "Non-consensually", as if you had to ask for permission to perform a GET request to an open HTTP server. Yes, I know about weev. That was a travesty.
>These were scrapers, and they were most likely trying to non-consensually collect content for training LLMs. "Non-consensually", as if you had to ask for permission to perform a GET request to an open HTTP server. Yes, I know about weev. That was a travesty.
I agree. It always surprises me when people are indignant about scrapers ignoring robots.txt and throw around words like "theft" and "abuse." robots.txt is a polite request to please not scrape these pages because it's probably not going to be productive. It was never meant to be a binding agreement, otherwise there would be a stricter protocol around it. It's kind of like leaving a note for the deliveryman saying pl…
> Likewise if enforcing a rule of no scraping is of utmost importance you need to require an API token or some other form of authentication before you serve the pages.
Yes, and if the rule of not dumping a ton of manure on your driveway is so important to you, you should live in a gated community and hire round-the-clock security. Some people do, but living in a society where the only way to not wake up with a ton of manure in your driveway is to spend excessive resources on security is not the world that I would prefer to live in. And I don't see why people would spend time to prove this is the only possible and normal world - it's certainly not the case, we can do better.