5 ms·
The language used seems alarmist, particularly given the extent to which Google use bots themselves. For example, "the new way to stop bots", "alert you of sus
by ksangeelee 8y ago
The language used seems alarmist, particularly given the extent to which Google use bots themselves.
For example, "the new way to stop bots", "alert you of suspicious traffic", "identify the pattern of attackers", "pages are being targeted by bots", "stay ahead of attackers and keep the Internet easy and safe to use (except for bots)"
Many companies have built valuable services by automating HTTP requests. One might even think that Google would like them to stop.
Two things that particularly worry me about this are a) encouraging sites to apply captchas to pages that have nothing to do with authentication and form inputs, and b) the hint of requiring two-factor authentication and phone numbers to proceed. [edit] will Google be offering to handle this on behalf of sites?
- candiodari 8y agoBut you can't seriously expect site owners to just deal with the amount of spam bots can generate because it'd be 1% more equitable to users (that would be driven out by those very bots reCaptcha protects you from btw) And who pays for those costs ? Who eliminates the tons of spam posted ?
- ksangeelee 8y agoYou seem to think that I'm against spam protection mechanisms, which I'm not. I am concerned that this will be used to 'protect' GET requests rather than POST requests, so to speak.
- dotancohen 8y ago> Many companies have built valuable services by automating HTTP requests. One might even think that Google would like them to stop. Exactly this. Note that reCaptcha v3 is meant to be placed on every page, not just forms, and returns a "bot score" which the site can use for any purpose. I can see any new web search engine being horribly muffled by the (mis)use of reCaptcha v3.