3 ms·

> request data and receive what the other server voluntarily transmits? Taking your position to its logical conclusion implies that we shouldn't try to mitigat

> request data and receive what the other server voluntarily transmits? Taking your position to its logical conclusion implies that we shouldn't try to mitigate DDoSes either. In many cases, what the other server voluntarily transmits has so far been based on the tacit assumption that a person, with person-level time and computational power, is doing the receiving. While in principle a machine could be doing it even in pre-LLM times, in practice many websites, including all the biggest ones, have implemented a wide range of approaches to try to curb machine access, starting with user agent checks and rate limits but by no means ending there. The question is: Given the new landscape, where this assumption increasingly does not hold (because AI agents are increasingly able to simulate anything a person could do online), would those servers voluntarily transmit that data? In many cases, the answer is no.

akersten 2mo ago
> Taking your position to its logical conclusion implies that we shouldn't try to mitigate DDoSes either. Not really. At any time you can, and should, choose not to reply to traffic that is wasting your bandwidth - ban IPs, use DDOS mitigation services, etc. My position is simply that regulation doesn't belong in this space, and it's ok for the 'net to be a dog eat dog world. Kind of what keeps technology advancing and exciting.
- akoboldfrying 2mo ago
  But who decides what comprises "wasting [my] bandwidth"? This is subjective. Is it me (the site owner in this example)? If so: Since it's my subjective decision to make, couldn't I equally legitimately decide that traffic I serve to non-human entities is "wasting my bandwidth"? To be clear, I'm not trying to make the case that there should be some law in place that prevents scraping or machine access across the board -- only that it would make sense for website operators to be able, optionally, to include that kind of usage restriction in an ordinary contract and legally enforce it by the usual means (lawsuits), in addition to any kind of technical restrictions they are able to put in place.
  - lelandbatey 2mo ago
    Yes, you e always been able to do this, as long as you get an actual contract that's enforceable. The thing about most sites is they're public and you don't need to sign a real contract to use them. Can't have it both ways.

akersten 2mo ago

> Taking your position to its logical conclusion implies that we shouldn't try to mitigate DDoSes either. Not really. At any time you can, and should, choose not to reply to traffic that is wasting your bandwidth - ban IPs, use DDOS mitigation services, etc. My position is simply that regulation doesn't belong in this space, and it's ok for the 'net to be a dog eat dog world. Kind of what keeps technology advancing and exciting.

akoboldfrying 2mo ago
But who decides what comprises "wasting [my] bandwidth"? This is subjective. Is it me (the site owner in this example)? If so: Since it's my subjective decision to make, couldn't I equally legitimately decide that traffic I serve to non-human entities is "wasting my bandwidth"? To be clear, I'm not trying to make the case that there should be some law in place that prevents scraping or machine access across the board -- only that it would make sense for website operators to be able, optionally, to include that kind of usage restriction in an ordinary contract and legally enforce it by the usual means (lawsuits), in addition to any kind of technical restrictions they are able to put in place.
- lelandbatey 2mo ago
  Yes, you e always been able to do this, as long as you get an actual contract that's enforceable. The thing about most sites is they're public and you don't need to sign a real contract to use them. Can't have it both ways.