3 ms·
No, but it also doesn't matter whose fault it is. Having that happen will probably reduce your traffic. It might be worth the trade-off, and it might not. But i
by RamRodification 1y ago
No, but it also doesn't matter whose fault it is. Having that happen will probably reduce your traffic. It might be worth the trade-off, and it might not. But if people go "Do Not Want!" it is worth paying attention to.
- alpaca128 1y agoThe one mentioned in the article was made because LLM scrapers DDOSed a person’s server. If it’s unusable for everyone, making everyone wait a bit to solve the issue is a clear improvement. > it also doesn’t matter whose fault it is People will always blame someone and have the uncanny talent to blame the wrong party. With cookie popups they blame the EU instead of the websites literally selling them out, here they’ll probably turn around and blame the website operators for defending themselves. For corporations running not just the scrapers but also the social networks it’s easy to algorithmically control the narrative.
- RamRodification 1y ago> If it’s unusable for everyone, making everyone wait a bit to solve the issue is a clear improvement. I agree. > People will always blame someone I agree. That's my point.
- ReptileMan 1y ago>With cookie popups they blame the EU instead of the websites literally selling them out EU created the flawed legislation, EU carved the loopholes, EU implementation and enforcement sucked, sites took the most obvious and predictable road. So who is to blame for the worse experience?
- Disposal8433 1y ago> will probably reduce your traffic That's the point. Some web sites are DDOSed by scrapers and they obviously don't want such traffic.
- RamRodification 1y agoI meant 'real' traffic. Maybe that wasn't obvious.