@madsenandersc@social.vivaldi.net
Post #1916980
2026-04-25 19:46 UTC
@benjaoming
Again, it's a protocol, not an application. Think about it: It is not the protocol that exposes the content to the AI scraper - it is the application.
Spam is not prevented by legal restrictions of the SMTP-protocol either - it's a feature in the application instead, and it is usually activated by the user (or at least possible to deactivate).
I understand what you want, and I get the reasons for it, but restricting what protocols can carry and for whom, is usually a bad idea in the long run.
There is a always a use case that you did not think of, and suddenly people starts forking or modifying new versions of the protocol, with backwards compatibility going down the drain.
Replies (1)
-
@benjaoming@social.data.coop 2026-04-25 19:55
@madsenandersc I can also write a scraper that doesn't care about robots.txt. People would then discover that the scraper acts in ways we don't like and try to block it. I think it's the same, if you exercise the implications of what it would mean if ActivityPub had a distinct field for how the data is allowed to be used. Whether that means legal action or blocking certain things.