4 ms·

> I think most people would draw a distinction between the two, and would at least agree the latter is more acceptable than the former. No. I should be able to

> I think most people would draw a distinction between the two, and would at least agree the latter is more acceptable than the former. No. I should be able to control which automated retrieval tools can scrape my site, regardless of who commands it. We can play cat and mouse all day, but I control the content and I will always win: I can just take it down when annoyed badly enough. Then nobody gets the content, and we can all thank upstanding companies like Perplexity for that collapse of trust.

gkbrk 1y ago
> Then nobody gets the content, and we can all thank upstanding companies like Perplexity for that collapse of trust. But they didn't take down the content, you did. When people running websites take down content because people use Firefox with ad-blockers, I don't blame Firefox either, I blame the website.
- Bluescreenbuddy 1y ago
  FF isn’t training their money printer with MY data. AI scrapers are
- glenstein 1y ago
  >But they didn't take down the content, you did. That skips the part about one party's unique role in the abuse of trust.
hombre_fatal 1y ago
Taking down the content because you're annoyed that people are asking questions about it via an LLM interface doesn't seem like you're winning. It's also a gift to your competitors. You're certainly free to do it. It's just a really faint example of you being "in control" much less winning over LLM agents: Ok, so the people who cared about your content can't access it anymore because you "got back" at Perplexity, a company who will never notice.
- ipaddr 1y ago
  It could be my server keeps going down because of llms agents keep requesting pages from my lyric site. Removing that site allowed other sites to remain up. True story. Who cares if perplexity will never notice. Or competitors get an advantage. It is a negative for users using perplexity or visiting directly because the content doesn't exist. That's the world perplexity and others are creating. They will be able to pull anything from the web but nothing will be left.
IncreasePosts 1y ago
You don't win, because presumably you were providing the content for some reason, and forcing yourself to take it down is contrary to whatever reason that was in the first place.
- ipaddr 1y ago
  Llms attack certain topics so removing one site will allow the others to live on the same server.
Den_VR 1y ago
You can limit access, sure: with ACLs, putting content behind login, certificate based mechanisms, and at the end of the day -a power cord-. But really, controlling which automated retrieval tools are allowed has always been more of a code of honor than a technical control. And that trust you mention has always been broken. For as long as I can remember anyway. Remember LexiBot and AltaVista?

gkbrk 1y ago

> Then nobody gets the content, and we can all thank upstanding companies like Perplexity for that collapse of trust. But they didn't take down the content, you did. When people running websites take down content because people use Firefox with ad-blockers, I don't blame Firefox either, I blame the website.

Bluescreenbuddy 1y ago
FF isn’t training their money printer with MY data. AI scrapers are
glenstein 1y ago
>But they didn't take down the content, you did. That skips the part about one party's unique role in the abuse of trust.

hombre_fatal 1y ago

Taking down the content because you're annoyed that people are asking questions about it via an LLM interface doesn't seem like you're winning. It's also a gift to your competitors. You're certainly free to do it. It's just a really faint example of you being "in control" much less winning over LLM agents: Ok, so the people who cared about your content can't access it anymore because you "got back" at Perplexity, a company who will never notice.

ipaddr 1y ago
It could be my server keeps going down because of llms agents keep requesting pages from my lyric site. Removing that site allowed other sites to remain up. True story. Who cares if perplexity will never notice. Or competitors get an advantage. It is a negative for users using perplexity or visiting directly because the content doesn't exist. That's the world perplexity and others are creating. They will be able to pull anything from the web but nothing will be left.

IncreasePosts 1y ago

You don't win, because presumably you were providing the content for some reason, and forcing yourself to take it down is contrary to whatever reason that was in the first place.

ipaddr 1y ago
Llms attack certain topics so removing one site will allow the others to live on the same server.

Den_VR 1y ago

You can limit access, sure: with ACLs, putting content behind login, certificate based mechanisms, and at the end of the day -a power cord-. But really, controlling which automated retrieval tools are allowed has always been more of a code of honor than a technical control. And that trust you mention has always been broken. For as long as I can remember anyway. Remember LexiBot and AltaVista?