5 ms·
Leaving the injunction in place is insane and a huge oversight. It amounts to making web pages carriers that cannot select who they serve. It should have said
by emilfihlman 7y ago
Leaving the injunction in place is insane and a huge oversight. It amounts to making web pages carriers that cannot select who they serve.
It should have said only that there is nothing judicially wrong with scraping but also not limited the rights of a service.
- dhimes 7y agoIt's limited to public pages. They can still discriminate whom they serve, with logins or something, but they can't limit your ability to access their page in a way that you prefer.
- jibal 7y agoOf course they can. The question is whether they can do so legally and, if not, based on what laws.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- emilfihlman 7y agoAllthesame. If I as a web host want to fuck with people or just someone by randomly dropping connections, this says I can't (well, it says so for LinkedIn but it's results in the same being applied to others). This is insane. It really should have just said that "it's legal to scrape" but it shouldn't have said "and you can't stop that".