4 ms·
> They shouldn't have to serve that content to people who aren't actually their users. So put it behind a password. It's not reasonable to expect to get only t
by mbillie1 9y ago
> They shouldn't have to serve that content to people who aren't actually their users.
So put it behind a password. It's not reasonable to expect to get only the benefits of publicly-searchable data without any of the drawbacks.
- Spivak 9y agoThis is the crux of the issue, it's my impression that the CFAA doesn't have any language that sites have to take precautions to prevent unauthorized access.
- mywittyname 9y agoThe policy is also harmful to innovation. If a Google-like competitor started, all Google would have to do to crush them is demand big-name sites formally prohibit the competitor from accessing their content or risk being delisted. And magically, it becomes impossible/illegal to build a duck-duck-go.
- ue_ 9y agoIsn't that monopolistic behaviour? I suspect that it might violate some laws, though I don't know anything in particular. On the other hand, why couldn't DDG just do what Google does and say "robots.txt prevents us from getting a description for this site"? On one hand I'm against the cartel beahviour of Google doing something like that, but on the other hand, if Google asks and the other company agrees to block DDG, why shouldn't that be allowed?