Andy Reid@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 9 months agoAI companies are violating a basic social contract of the web and and ignoring robots.txtwww.theverge.comexternal-linkmessage-square161fedilinkarrow-up1162arrow-down12cross-posted to: technology@midwest.socialwolnyinternet@szmer.info
arrow-up1160arrow-down1external-linkAI companies are violating a basic social contract of the web and and ignoring robots.txtwww.theverge.comAndy Reid@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 9 months agomessage-square161fedilinkcross-posted to: technology@midwest.socialwolnyinternet@szmer.info
minus-squareAatube@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up0·9 months agorobots.txt is purely textual; you can’t run JavaScript or log anything. Plus, one who doesn’t intend to follow robots.txt wouldn’t query it.
minus-squareBrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·9 months agoIf it doesn’t get queried that’s the fault of the webscraper. You don’t need JS built into the robots.txt file either. Just add some line like: here-there-be-dragons.html Any client that hits that page (and maybe doesn’t pass a captcha check) gets banned. Or even better, they get a long stream of nonsense.
minus-square4am@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·9 months agoserver { name herebedragons.example.com; root /dev/random; }
minus-squarePlexSheep@feddit.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·9 months agoNice idea! Better use /dev/urandom through, as that is non blocking. See here.
minus-squareAniki 🌱🌿@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down1·9 months agoThat was really interesting. I always used urandom by practice and wondered what the difference was.
minus-squareAniki 🌱🌿@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down1·edit-29 months agoI wonder if Nginx would just load random into memory until the kernel OOM kills it.
minus-squaregravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down1·9 months agoI actually love the data-poisoning approach. I think that sort of strategy is going to be an unfortunately necessary part of the future of the web.
minus-squareShitpostCentral@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·9 months agoYou’re second point is a good one, but you absolutely can log the IP which requested robots.txt. That’s just a standard part of any http server ever, no JavaScript needed.
minus-squareGenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·9 months agoYou’d probably have to go out of your way to avoid logging this. I’ve always seen such logs enabled by default when setting up web servers.
robots.txt is purely textual; you can’t run JavaScript or log anything. Plus, one who doesn’t intend to follow robots.txt wouldn’t query it.
If it doesn’t get queried that’s the fault of the webscraper. You don’t need JS built into the robots.txt file either. Just add some line like:
Any client that hits that page (and maybe doesn’t pass a captcha check) gets banned. Or even better, they get a long stream of nonsense.
server {
name herebedragons.example.com; root /dev/random;
}
Nice idea! Better use
/dev/urandomthrough, as that is non blocking. See here.That was really interesting. I always used urandom by practice and wondered what the difference was.
I wonder if Nginx would just load random into memory until the kernel OOM kills it.
I actually love the data-poisoning approach. I think that sort of strategy is going to be an unfortunately necessary part of the future of the web.
You’re second point is a good one, but you absolutely can log the IP which requested robots.txt. That’s just a standard part of any http server ever, no JavaScript needed.
You’d probably have to go out of your way to avoid logging this. I’ve always seen such logs enabled by default when setting up web servers.