←back to thread

255 points ColinWright | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.84s | source
Show context
bakql ◴[] No.45775259[source]
>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.

replies(15): >>45775283 #>>45775392 #>>45775754 #>>45775912 #>>45775998 #>>45776008 #>>45776055 #>>45776210 #>>45776222 #>>45776270 #>>45776765 #>>45776932 #>>45777727 #>>45777934 #>>45778166 #
Calavar ◴[] No.45775392[source]
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 please don't leave packages on the porch. It's fine for low stakes situations, but if package security is of utmost importance to you, you should arrange to get it certified or to pick it up at the delivery center. 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.

replies(9): >>45775489 #>>45775674 #>>45776143 #>>45776484 #>>45776561 #>>45776927 #>>45777831 #>>45778192 #>>45779259 #
hsbauauvhabzb ◴[] No.45775489[source]
How else do you tell the bot you do not wish to be scraped? Your analogy is lacking - you didn’t order a package, you never wanted a package, and the postman is taking something, not leaving it, and you’ve explicitly left a sign saying ‘you are not welcome here’.
replies(5): >>45775544 #>>45775575 #>>45775693 #>>45775841 #>>45775924 #
Calavar ◴[] No.45775575[source]
If you are serving web pages, you are soliciting GET requests, kind of like ordering a package is soliciting a delivery.

"Taking" versus "giving" is neither here nor there for this discussion. The question is are you expressing a preference on etiquette versus a hard rule that must be followed. I personally believe robots.txt is the former, and I say that as someone who serves more pages than they scrape

replies(6): >>45775850 #>>45775994 #>>45776241 #>>45776635 #>>45776878 #>>45778341 #
yuliyp ◴[] No.45775850[source]
Having a front door physically allows anyone on the street to come to knock on it. Having a "no soliciting" sign is an instruction clarifying that not everybody is welcome. Having a web site should operate in a similar fashion. The robots.txt is the equivalent of such a sign.
replies(2): >>45775917 #>>45776385 #
halJordan ◴[] No.45775917[source]
No soliciting signs are polite requests that no one has to follow, and door to door salesman regularly walk right past them.

No one is calling for the criminalization of door-to-door sales and no one is worried about how much door-to-door sales increases water consumption.

replies(4): >>45777090 #>>45777176 #>>45779738 #>>45780613 #
ahtihn ◴[] No.45777176[source]
If a company was sending hundreds of salesmen to knock at a door one after the other, I'm pretty sure they could successfully get sued for harassment.
replies(1): >>45778985 #
1. hsbauauvhabzb ◴[] No.45778985[source]
Can’t Americans literally shoot each other for trespassing?
replies(1): >>45779013 #
2. dragonwriter ◴[] No.45779013[source]
Generally, legally, no, not just for ignoring a “no soliciting” sign.
replies(1): >>45779406 #
3. hsbauauvhabzb ◴[] No.45779406[source]
But they’re presumably trespassing.
replies(1): >>45782069 #
4. dragonwriter ◴[] No.45782069{3}[source]
And, despite what ideas you may get from the media, mere trespass without imminent threat to life is not a justification for deadly force.

There are some states where the considerations for self defense do not include a duty to retreat if possible, either in general (“stand your ground" law) or specifically in the home (“castle doctrine"), but all the other requirements (imminent threat of certain kinds of serious harm, proportional force) for self-defense remain part of the law in those states, and trespassing by/while disregarding a ”no soliciting” would not, by itself, satisfy those requirements.