3 ms·
Why are you ignoring his main argument?
by __loam 2y ago
Why are you ignoring his main argument?
- lolinder 2y agoI'm not. I'm asking why this flow is "distribution": * User types an address into Perplexity * Perplexity fetches the page, transforms it, and renders some part of it for the user But this flow is not: * User types an address into Orion Browser * Orion Browser fetches the page, transforms it, and renders some part of it for the user Regardless of the legal question (which I'm also skeptical of), I'm especially unconvinced that there's a moral distinction between a web service that transforms copyrighted works in an ad hoc manner upon a user's specific request and renders them for that specific user vs an installed application that does exactly the same thing.
- __loam 2y agoThe moral case is pretty obviously that Perplexity is preventing traffic from reaching the people who made the content.
- lolinder 2y agoHow so? TFA pretty clearly shows that traffic does reach the server, how else would it show up in the logs? Also, the author of TFA has already gotten themselves deindexed, the behavior they're complaining about now is that if someone copies and pastes a link into Perplexity it will go fetch the page for the user and summarize it. This scenario presupposes that the user has a link to a specific page. I suspect that in nearly all cases that link will be copied from the address bar of an open tab. This means that most of the time the site will actually get double the traffic: one hit when the user opens it in the browser and a second when Perplexity asks for the page to summarize it.