Post #1916981

2026-04-25 19:55 UTC

@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.

Replies (2)

@benjaoming@social.data.coop 2026-04-25 19:56

@madsenandersc It seems like we're just missing something because we don't even have a basic way to say "no, my post isn't allowed for LLM training" There's also the good old HTTP field "Do Not Track".

Open ##1916982
@madsenandersc@social.vivaldi.net 2026-04-25 20:00

@benjaoming I don't follow the reasoning behind your example here? If the field in the ActivityPub protocol cannot be enforced (like the entry in robots.txt), why bother then? It will just be like the "Do not track"-field in your browser settings that will give those that don't know any better a false sense of security. Or do I misunderstand your example? I still firmly believe that this problem can only be solved reliably at the application level, not the protocol.

Open ##1916987