51–60 of 78 posts
Easy: just write content that is substantive enough that a summary isn't a sufficient replacement.
How will they know if they don't visit because of the summary?
I have this in my Apache conf for a site I don't want indexed/archived etc. Header set X-Robots-Tag "noindex, nofollow, noarchive, nositelinkssearchbox, nosnippet, notranslate, noimageindex" Of course, only the beeping Internet Archive totally ignored it and scraped my site. And now, despite me trying many times, they won't remove it. It seems to mostly work, I also have Anubis in front of it now to keep the scrapers…
>> And now, despite me trying many times, they won't remove it. >Good! It's literally the Internet Archive and you published it on the internet. That was your choice. >As a general rule, people shouldn't get to remove things from the historical record. >Sometimes we make exceptions for things that were unlawful to publish in the first place -- e.g. defamation, national secrets, certain types of obscene photos -- wher…
So... you believe that your and IA's behavior is or is not okay? Because it's a touch odd to start playing the other side now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, little chance that down the road they'll contact you asking if you want to pay to be described more positively than your competitors. Or asking if you want to pay to remove false information that they generate which makes you look bad.
So basically automated Yelp on steroids?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> And now, despite me trying many times, they won't remove it. >Good! It's literally the Internet Archive and you published it on the internet. That was your choice. >As a general rule, people shouldn't get to remove things from the historical record. >Sometimes we make exceptions for things that were unlawful to publish in the first place -- e.g. defamation, national secrets, certain types of obscene photos -- wher…
> Note reply was from user crazygringo but I can't find it now, almost like they... removed it? It was public though and I'm SURE they won't mind me archiving it here for them. So... you believe that your and IA's behavior is or is not okay? Because it's a touch odd to start playing the other side now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Note reply was from user crazygringo but I can't find it now, almost like they... removed it? It was public though and I'm SURE they won't mind me archiving it here for them. So... you believe that your and IA's behavior is or is not okay? Because it's a touch odd to start playing the other side now.
I am obviously being a dick to prove my point on what a pathetic argument "It was public there's NOTHING we can do now" is.
I don't understand how these AI summaries don't cannibalize Google's future profits. Google lives off ads that direct users to websites, websites they are doing their damnedest to make unnecessary. Who will be building future websites that nobody visits.
Google is probably even more afraid of ChatGPT replacing it. So giving the user what they want is likely their way to try to hang on. IMO a LLM is just a superior technology to a search engine in that it can understand vague questions, collate information and translate from other languages. In a lot of cases what I want isn't to find a particular page but to obtain information, and a LLM gets closer to that ideal. It…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMHO, that’s a pretty entitled view of the whole process. I’ve published software under a license that disallows certain uses of it. Just because it is published doesn’t mean that it should be usable in any way that anybody wants.
You're asking a lot from law enforcement if you're giving away something for free and then demand that law enforcement make sure that people use the thing exactly as you have mandated. It's akin to me putting up billboards and stickers around town and then demanding to decide who gets to look at them. Same thing with online publishers. If they want to control who uses their content and how, there's a tried and true s…
I don't think the Free Software Foundation is asking a lot when it uses the rule of law to control who uses their content and how.
I have this in my Apache conf for a site I don't want indexed/archived etc. Header set X-Robots-Tag "noindex, nofollow, noarchive, nositelinkssearchbox, nosnippet, notranslate, noimageindex" Of course, only the beeping Internet Archive totally ignored it and scraped my site. And now, despite me trying many times, they won't remove it. It seems to mostly work, I also have Anubis in front of it now to keep the scrapers…
Try using robots.txt to get it removed or excluded from The Internet Archive. The organization went back and forth on respecting robots.txt a couple of times, but it started respecting it (again) some years ago.
Several years ago I was also frustrated by its refusal to remove some content taken from a site I owned, but later the change to follow robots.txt was implemented (and my site was removed).
The FAQ has more information on how this works (there may be caveats). [1]
https://support.archive-it.org/hc/en-us/articles/208001096-R...
In some way, the meaning of publish is to make something public, give the people and agents accessing that content some freedom to get and what do with it. And that what decide to do with that freedom may benefit you (i.e. making your site visible) or not. Google is a big player, and most of those content publishers may have been benefited by previous Google decisions, but it should be assumed that new decisions (lik…
Perhaps the answer for me is to put my content behind a login. A sad future for the web.