Live data from Hacker News

The Web Is Broken – Botnet Part 2

jan.wildeboer.net

201–210 of 301 posts

Re: The Web Is Broken – Botnet Part 2

#201
post #189

Let me get this straight: we want computers knowing everything, to solve current and future problems, but we don't want to give them access to our knowledge?

> Let me get this straight: we want computers knowing everything, to solve current and future problems, but we don't want to give them access to our knowledge?

Who said that?

There's basically two extremes:

1. We want access to all of human knowledge, now and forever, in order to monetise it and make more money for us, and us alone.

and

2. We don't want our freely available knowledge sold back to us, with no credits to the original authors.

Re: The Web Is Broken – Botnet Part 2

#202
post #6

Has anyone tried to compile a list of software that uses these libraries? It would be great to know what apps to avoid

> Has anyone tried to compile a list of software that uses these libraries? It would be great to know what apps to avoid

I wouldn't mind reading a comprehensive report on SOTA with regard to bot-blocking.

Sure, there's Anubis (although someone elsethread called it a half-measure, and I'd like to know why), there's captcha's, there's relying on a monopoly (cloudflare, etc) who probably also wants to run their own bots at some point, but what else is there?

Re: The Web Is Broken – Botnet Part 2

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, but you can't, that's the problem. Plenty of service operators would like to block every scraper that doesn't obey their robots.txt, but there's no good way to do that without blocking human traffic too (Anubis et al are okay, but they are half-measures). On a separate note, I believe open web scraping has been a massive benefit to the internet on net, and almost entirely positive pre-2021. Web scraping & crawl…

> Plenty of service operators would like to block every scraper that doesn't obey their robots.txt, but there's no good way to do that without blocking human traffic too (Anubis et al are okay, but they are half-measures) Why is Anubis-type mitigations a half-measure?

Anubis, go-away, etc are great, don't get me wrong -- but what Anubis does is impose a cost on every query. The website operator is hoping that the compute will have a rate-limiting effect on scrapers while minimally impacting the user experience. It's almost like chemotherapy, in that you're poisoning everyone in the hope that the aggressive bad actors will be more severely affected than the less aggressive good actors. Even the Anubis readme calls it a nuclear option. In practice it appears to work pretty well, which is great!

It's a half-measure because:

1. You're slowing down scrapers, not blocking them. They will still scrape your site content in violation of robots.txt.

2. Scrapers with more compute than IP proxies will not be significantly bottlenecked by this.

3. This may lead to an arms race where AI companies respond by beefing up their scraping infrastructure, necessitating more difficult PoW challenges, and so on. The end result of this hypothetical would be a more inconvenient and inefficient internet for everyone, including human users.

To be clear: I think Anubis is a great tool for website operators, and one of the best self-hostable options available today. However, it's a workaround for the core problem that we can't reliably distinguish traffic from badly behaving AI scrapers from legitimate user traffic.

Re: The Web Is Broken – Botnet Part 2

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blame the "AI" companies for that. I am glad the small web is pushing hard against these scrapers, with the rise of Anubis as a starting point

> Blame the "AI" companies for that. I am glad the small web is pushing hard towards these scrapers, with the rise of Anubis as a starting point Did you mean "against"?

Corrected, thanks
Post reply on HN