6 ms·

The parent suggested that it may not be legally binding, so not sure what you're pointing out. What about his main point of the ethical question - people are d

The parent suggested that it may not be legally binding, so not sure what you're pointing out. What about his main point of the ethical question - people are doing something with their service that they clearly don't want them to, because it hurts/costs them. Just because someone can get away with it doesn't make it right.

mirimir 7y ago
If you put data online for anyone to use, people will use it as they see fit. That's just how it is. And TFA isn't about scraping for data to monetize. It's about finding an apartment. The author mentions that scraping is the only way to use the site's data effectively. If it were about scraping to build an apartment-finding site, then issues about "what's right" would be relevant.
- CWuestefeld 7y ago
  I'd imagine the site has some reason for not including that functionality. Maybe they don't have developer resources to implement it, but on the other hand, maybe for some reason the computational cost puts too much strain on their servers. It must be true that the people offering the service have the right to decide where to draw a line between their investment in processing power versus the richness of the service's features. And if potential users don't like that decision, they're free to move on and use a different service. It can't be ethically right for everyone to just say "tough nuggies" and extract the desired service at untold cost, when the service's T&C have forbidden it.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    See this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20430944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20430944 It's what I'd say, except said more clearly.
    - allannienhuis 7y ago
      That describes things you want (and I agree that an api is a fairly reasonable thing to want), but they are not things you have the right to have just because you want them. It may be naive to assume people will honor the desires of a website owner, but that doesn't change the moral argument - you shouldn't try to convince yourself that you're in the right just because its difficult for the website owner to enforce their wishes for how people use their system, or because everyone does it - "that's just the way it is" doesn't make it right. I don't think we're talking about discrimination or equal access or even right to back up issues which might apply some moral right to access a site in ways not desired by a service owner - the vast majority of cases for scraping are where the scraper goes on to use that information in ways that are for the commercial benefit of the scraper and usually to the detriment of the site owner. The arguments about data access to publicly funded information has more merit but I don't see them applying in any way to private services. Am I missing some other fundamental right that applies here?
      - lyxsus1 7y ago
        > scraper goes on to use that information in ways that are for the commercial benefit of the scraper and usually to the detriment of the site owner Yes, and they extract that benefit because in the process they add a value to that information for end-user. > Am I missing some other fundamental right that applies here? Yes. When it's not prohibited by law, it's allowed.
        CWuestefeld 7y ago
        When it's not prohibited by law, it's allowed. Frankly, I'm glad I don't live in your community. I just got back from grocery shopping. Before I went in, I stomped off some mud I had on my feet. As I walked down the aisles, I accidentally knocked a bag of something off a shelf, so I turned around, picked it up, and returned it to its proper spot. When I got to the ice cream coolers, I first looked through the glass to decide what I wanted, and only opened the freezer door when I'd made my selection, sealing the door again once I was done. There aren't any laws forcing me to do those things. But I'm happy to do them, because (a) when we all cooperate in this manner, it makes life better for all of us; and (b) the additional costs of cleaning and shrinkage would make the groceries more expensive for us if we didn't do it. Have you ever been to a part of the world that doesn't have the same kind of "high trust" environment that most of us in the West enjoy? For example, in America we can safely assume that at a bus stop, people will of their own accord form up an orderly line when the bus comes, each person waiting their turn. My experience in some other nations is that people will swarm around the bus door, each jockeying to be the next one in. There aren't any laws forcing people to act as they do here, but I think we're all better off with the societal norm that drives people to do it our way.

mirimir 7y ago

If you put data online for anyone to use, people will use it as they see fit. That's just how it is. And TFA isn't about scraping for data to monetize. It's about finding an apartment. The author mentions that scraping is the only way to use the site's data effectively. If it were about scraping to build an apartment-finding site, then issues about "what's right" would be relevant.

CWuestefeld 7y ago
I'd imagine the site has some reason for not including that functionality. Maybe they don't have developer resources to implement it, but on the other hand, maybe for some reason the computational cost puts too much strain on their servers. It must be true that the people offering the service have the right to decide where to draw a line between their investment in processing power versus the richness of the service's features. And if potential users don't like that decision, they're free to move on and use a different service. It can't be ethically right for everyone to just say "tough nuggies" and extract the desired service at untold cost, when the service's T&C have forbidden it.
- mirimir 7y ago
  See this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20430944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20430944 It's what I'd say, except said more clearly.
  - allannienhuis 7y ago
    That describes things you want (and I agree that an api is a fairly reasonable thing to want), but they are not things you have the right to have just because you want them. It may be naive to assume people will honor the desires of a website owner, but that doesn't change the moral argument - you shouldn't try to convince yourself that you're in the right just because its difficult for the website owner to enforce their wishes for how people use their system, or because everyone does it - "that's just the way it is" doesn't make it right. I don't think we're talking about discrimination or equal access or even right to back up issues which might apply some moral right to access a site in ways not desired by a service owner - the vast majority of cases for scraping are where the scraper goes on to use that information in ways that are for the commercial benefit of the scraper and usually to the detriment of the site owner. The arguments about data access to publicly funded information has more merit but I don't see them applying in any way to private services. Am I missing some other fundamental right that applies here?
    - lyxsus1 7y ago
      > scraper goes on to use that information in ways that are for the commercial benefit of the scraper and usually to the detriment of the site owner Yes, and they extract that benefit because in the process they add a value to that information for end-user. > Am I missing some other fundamental right that applies here? Yes. When it's not prohibited by law, it's allowed.
      - CWuestefeld 7y ago
        When it's not prohibited by law, it's allowed. Frankly, I'm glad I don't live in your community. I just got back from grocery shopping. Before I went in, I stomped off some mud I had on my feet. As I walked down the aisles, I accidentally knocked a bag of something off a shelf, so I turned around, picked it up, and returned it to its proper spot. When I got to the ice cream coolers, I first looked through the glass to decide what I wanted, and only opened the freezer door when I'd made my selection, sealing the door again once I was done. There aren't any laws forcing me to do those things. But I'm happy to do them, because (a) when we all cooperate in this manner, it makes life better for all of us; and (b) the additional costs of cleaning and shrinkage would make the groceries more expensive for us if we didn't do it. Have you ever been to a part of the world that doesn't have the same kind of "high trust" environment that most of us in the West enjoy? For example, in America we can safely assume that at a bus stop, people will of their own accord form up an orderly line when the bus comes, each person waiting their turn. My experience in some other nations is that people will swarm around the bus door, each jockeying to be the next one in. There aren't any laws forcing people to act as they do here, but I think we're all better off with the societal norm that drives people to do it our way.