291–293 of 293 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One could argue that it's immoral to respond to a comment about a topic when one hasn't read the link in that comment.
HN is not an appropriate place to project your moral insecurities in this manner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "You didn't "ask my server". Yes, you did. > You used a tool to extract data from my server. No, that's not how the technology works.
Using fishing bait is just a "request" for a fish to bite my line so I can pull it in. It's up to the fish to respond to the 'request', right? So does that absolve me of a crime if I go fishing in someone else's pond and pull out all of their fish? Cause the fish are the ones that responded, right, so it's not my fault? No, of course not. The technical details of how an HTTP request works are not what is relevant her…
Considering the kind of private scraping and selling tactics LinkedIn has been chronically guilty of (and not just the ordinary "growth hack" stuff: "LinkedIn violated data protection by using 18M email addresses of non-members to buy targeted ads on Facebook" [1]), it's satisfying to see LinkedIn lose this. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/24/linkedin-ireland-data-prot...
I feel like this is a really common theme I've seen several times. Something like "Music Lyric site X sues Google for embedding their lyrics in the results directly" which is funny because site X got the lyrics by scraping them from other sites. Plus Google only exists from scraping content, but I believe their TOS includes "don't scrape our content". I find it really funny that the scrapers are battling scrapers - l…