161–170 of 240 posts
I don't know how far Facebook can get with this, thought Linkedin's court ruling made scraping legal de-facto
Collecting the rhetorical BS: "scraping attacks" Scraping is not an attack. Monopolists want to pretend they own your data because they get unlimited access to monetize it whereas competitors should have none. "self-compromised" Monopolists want to sell you thus it's imperative they maintain the fiction of "one person, one account". By admitting you own your account, they'd have to allow sharing and they wouldn't be…
Collecting the rhetorical BS: "scraping attacks" Scraping is not an attack. Monopolists want to pretend they own your data because they get unlimited access to monetize it whereas competitors should have none. "self-compromised" Monopolists want to sell you thus it's imperative they maintain the fiction of "one person, one account". By admitting you own your account, they'd have to allow sharing and they wouldn't be…
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a false expectation and it’s important people learn this.
They’ll stop posting in the way they currently enjoy and will, therefore, have lost some freedom. Great outcome! In other news: your partner may also leak your most intimate secrets. I hope they do, to teach you a lesson? Every trust can be betrayed. Why do you believe a world without trust would be better? Only because you cannot handle the nuance of different levels of trust?
That is, quite honestly, one of the oddest definitions of freedom I've come across.
Data harvesting is moral for me, but not for thee.
In general I agree that harvesting public data is moral. I think that in these particular cases it's: 1) extracting data from profiles that opted for not being public (only available to logged in users) and 2) reposting scraped data (publicly?) as belonging to the guy who scraped it without users consent.
Sharing photos on Instagram, there is no such understanding, news outlets have been logging in to view and publish your instagram photos so.
This is different from LinkedIn v HiQ because HiQ was only scraping publicly available data that was generally accessible to the broader internet. In these two cases, the data is being scraped from FB/Insta using credentials that the client handed over or the mass creation of accounts solely for scraping purposes.
Those accounts wouldn't be allowed to view private data though unless they friend/follow the person first, so they'll only still be limited to data the account holders intend to be public and available to anyone.
There's also no evidence that the scraped data was aggregated at scale or commingled in any way, so even if customers provided their actual credentials which grant them access to private data of their friends, the scraper didn't share it with anyone else but them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are arguing that an organization's data is worthless but only their code has worth, then I'm not quite sure where to go from this point in this discussion, other than to say that is crazy .
The data is obviously valuable, but they don't necessarily deserve a monopoly on that data, since that data primarily belongs to the users who created the data; so while it's understandable that organizations want to restrict that data, we have no obligation (moral or otherwise) to respect that desire.
I am sure Facebook believes they deserve a monopoly for having obtained it first. They do not. The market forces you to compete for every dollar you earn, so you have every right to expect Facebook to compete for every dollar they earn, and "I touched it first therefore it's mine!" is not competition.
>Octopus, a US subsidiary of a Chinese national high-tech enterprise, built a cloud-based platform designed to provide paying customers access to on-demand scraping software and services. It is interesting as how they try to position this as a Chinese attack on them.
It makes me think that there are many people on CCP's dole, rich powerful famous people are somehow beholden to the CCP in some unknown way but we can all guess correctly that they are all old white men who have previously been seen with young females.
It's like they don't know that courts just made it legal: https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/18/web-scraping-legal-court/
From the article: "[T]he Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its original decision and found that scraping data that is publicly accessible on the internet is not a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act." The key phrase is "publicly accessible." This wasn't that. The scraping was done by automating Facebook accounts, which have terms of service, which forbid scraping. ToS/EULAs make a big difference. They're the reason…
In this case, the account requirement would be a technicality and the data, for all intents and purposes, would still be considered "publicly accessible" if anyone with an account can access it.
It's like they don't know that courts just made it legal: https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/18/web-scraping-legal-court/
From the article: "[T]he Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its original decision and found that scraping data that is publicly accessible on the internet is not a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act." The key phrase is "publicly accessible." This wasn't that. The scraping was done by automating Facebook accounts, which have terms of service, which forbid scraping. ToS/EULAs make a big difference. They're the reason…