4 ms·

How do you know what the contextual configuration of their robots.txt is/was? Your accusation was directly addressed by the author in a comment on the original

How do you know what the contextual configuration of their robots.txt is/was? Your accusation was directly addressed by the author in a comment on the original post, IIRC i find your attitude as expressed here to be problematic in many ways

alphan0n 2y ago
CommonCrawl archives robots.txt For convenience, you can view the extracted data here: https://pastebin.com/VSHMTThJ https://pastebin.com/VSHMTThJ You are welcome to verify for yourself by searching for “wiki.diasporafoundation.org/robots.txt” in the CommonCrawl index here: https://index.commoncrawl.org/ https://index.commoncrawl.org/ The index contains a file name that you can append to the CommonCrawl url to download the archive and view. More detailed information on downloading archives here: https://commoncrawl.org/get-started https://commoncrawl.org/get-started From September to December, the robots.txt at wiki.diasporafoundation.org contained this, and only this: >User-agent: * >Disallow: /w/ Apologies for my attitude, I find defenders of the dishonest in the face of clear evidence even more problematic.
- shkkmo 2y ago
  Your attitude is inappropriate and violates the sitewide guidelines for discussion.
  - alphan0n 2y ago
    There are currently two references to “Mangion-ing” OpenAI board members in this thread, several more from Reddit, based on the falsehoods being perpetrated by the author. Is this really someone you want to conspire with? Is calling this out more egregious than the witch hunt being organized here?
    - shkkmo 2y ago
      "conspire" and "witch hunt", are not terms of productive discourse. If you are legitimately trying to correct misinformation, your attitude, tone and language are counter productive. You would be much better seved by taking that energy and crafting an actually persuasive argument. You come across as unreasonable and unwilling to listen, not someone with a good grasp of the technical specifics. I don't have a horse in the race. I'm fairly technical, but I did not find your arguments persuasive. This doesn't mean they are wrong, but it does mean that you didn't do a good job of explaining them.

alphan0n 2y ago

CommonCrawl archives robots.txt For convenience, you can view the extracted data here: https://pastebin.com/VSHMTThJ https://pastebin.com/VSHMTThJ You are welcome to verify for yourself by searching for “wiki.diasporafoundation.org/robots.txt” in the CommonCrawl index here: https://index.commoncrawl.org/ https://index.commoncrawl.org/ The index contains a file name that you can append to the CommonCrawl url to download the archive and view. More detailed information on downloading archives here: https://commoncrawl.org/get-started https://commoncrawl.org/get-started From September to December, the robots.txt at wiki.diasporafoundation.org contained this, and only this: >User-agent: * >Disallow: /w/ Apologies for my attitude, I find defenders of the dishonest in the face of clear evidence even more problematic.

shkkmo 2y ago
Your attitude is inappropriate and violates the sitewide guidelines for discussion.
- alphan0n 2y ago
  There are currently two references to “Mangion-ing” OpenAI board members in this thread, several more from Reddit, based on the falsehoods being perpetrated by the author. Is this really someone you want to conspire with? Is calling this out more egregious than the witch hunt being organized here?
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    "conspire" and "witch hunt", are not terms of productive discourse. If you are legitimately trying to correct misinformation, your attitude, tone and language are counter productive. You would be much better seved by taking that energy and crafting an actually persuasive argument. You come across as unreasonable and unwilling to listen, not someone with a good grasp of the technical specifics. I don't have a horse in the race. I'm fairly technical, but I did not find your arguments persuasive. This doesn't mean they are wrong, but it does mean that you didn't do a good job of explaining them.