5 ms·

Frankly, this isn't out of character for the IA. They want to be treated as a global system of record, but then started hostile initiatives like ignoring robots

by kodah 4y ago

Frankly, this isn't out of character for the IA. They want to be treated as a global system of record, but then started hostile initiatives like ignoring robots.txt. They've somewhat rectified this now, but their blog post about brazenly doing this is still up. It's good insight to how they think about themselves. They want protection but none of the regulation that will come with it. The proof of their character has been in the pudding the whole time.

tracker1 4y ago
I don't mind their desire to slurp up all the things... my bigger/biggest issue is probably the reproduction/distribution by making what they slurp generally available (when they bypass said robots.txt as an example). For expired works, or works that are no longer published, I'm pretty morally flexible here and lean towards making it available.
gkbrk 4y ago
> hostile initiatives like ignoring robots.txt Why would an organization with the goal of being a digital "library" care about robots.txt? Would you expect public and private libraries to discard arbitrary books of a publisher from their collection because the author put a file called libraries.txt on their website?
- kodah 4y ago
  If your public library found your journal laying on the floor would you expect them to put it on their shelf, even if you had a message inside the cover that said "not for reproduction"? Would they eschew blame if you'd shared this journal with friends? The answer is no. You wouldn't. Some people put things on the internet but don't want them slurped up by some mindless machine, and some people post both public content and content which they don't want handled by a machine. It's a fair ask that the IA respect long-trodden patterns of the web.
  - account42 4y ago
    The is no mindles machine, only computers automating work for humans. If you don't want things on the public web then noone is forcing you to put them there. Once you put things online accessible to anyone then things will get archived and shared. Deal with it.
account42 4y ago
Ignoring robots.txt is the only way to be a "system of record". Otherwise you don't record what actual humans see.

by kodah 4y ago

tracker1 4y ago

I don't mind their desire to slurp up all the things... my bigger/biggest issue is probably the reproduction/distribution by making what they slurp generally available (when they bypass said robots.txt as an example). For expired works, or works that are no longer published, I'm pretty morally flexible here and lean towards making it available.

gkbrk 4y ago

> hostile initiatives like ignoring robots.txt Why would an organization with the goal of being a digital "library" care about robots.txt? Would you expect public and private libraries to discard arbitrary books of a publisher from their collection because the author put a file called libraries.txt on their website?

kodah 4y ago
If your public library found your journal laying on the floor would you expect them to put it on their shelf, even if you had a message inside the cover that said "not for reproduction"? Would they eschew blame if you'd shared this journal with friends? The answer is no. You wouldn't. Some people put things on the internet but don't want them slurped up by some mindless machine, and some people post both public content and content which they don't want handled by a machine. It's a fair ask that the IA respect long-trodden patterns of the web.
- account42 4y ago
  The is no mindles machine, only computers automating work for humans. If you don't want things on the public web then noone is forcing you to put them there. Once you put things online accessible to anyone then things will get archived and shared. Deal with it.

account42 4y ago

Ignoring robots.txt is the only way to be a "system of record". Otherwise you don't record what actual humans see.