> You just state that "there is no middle ground", then go on describing instances of what arguably is "middle ground" as "absurd hacks". What's it gonna be? T

> You just state that "there is no middle ground", then go on describing instances of what arguably is "middle ground" as "absurd hacks". What's it gonna be? There is no middle ground _in the protocol_ and that's why I explicitly said hacks. Any system can be rehashed into anything else with unlimited extra layers on top of it - by your definition everything is everything. > What's really needed is something that can, for example, distinguish between a journalist scraping Facebook to map out a terror network vs. some other entity scraping Facebook to sell your embarrassing photos to the highest bidder ten years down the road. Sorry but that sounds uneforcable and rather absurd. We have the framework in place already - if you don't want something to be public don't put it out in the public _explicitly_. To add we already have legal framework in place for copyrighted and/or protected content like photos and against any sort of malicious attacks like ddos. Our web is getting extremely centralized and most of these majors are natural monopolies: google search becomes stronger the more data it has - google can scrape the entire web freely yet it's competition can't; facebook becomes stronger the more data is has etc. etc. One way to restore balance is to ensure that public data remains public and the ecosystem can have healthy competition and growth otherwise we're moving to a very dystopian corporate owned world.