this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
1074 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

59106 readers
3944 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think the issue is that existing laws don't clearly draw a line that AI can cross. New laws may very well be necessary if you want any chance at enforcement.

And without a law that defines documents like robots.txt as binding, enforcing respect for it isn't "unnecessary", it is impossible.

I see no logic in complaining about lack of enforcement while actively opposing the ability to meaningfully enforce.

[โ€“] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 8 months ago

Copyright law in general needs changing though that's the real problem. I don't see the advantage of legally mandating that a hacky workaround solution becomes a legally mandated requirement.

Especially because there are many many legitimate reasons to ignore robots.txt including it being misconfigured or it just been set up for search engines when your bot isn't a search engine crawler.