this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
865 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

74627 readers
3091 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Glitchvid@lemmy.world 255 points 1 week ago (3 children)

When a firm outright admits to bypassing or trying to bypass measures taken to keep them out, you think that would be a slam dunk case of unauthorized access under the CFAA with felony enhancements.

[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 104 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Fuck that. I don't need prosecutors and the courts to rule that accessing publicly available information in a way that the website owner doesn't want is literally a crime. That logic would extend to ad blockers and editing HTML/js in an "inspect element" tag.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 60 points 1 week ago (11 children)

That logic would not extend to ad blockers, as the point of concern is gaining unauthorized access to a computer system or asset. Blocking ads would not be considered gaining unauthorized access to anything. In fact it would be the opposite of that.

[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (14 children)

gaining unauthorized access to a computer system

And my point is that defining "unauthorized" to include visitors using unauthorized tools/methods to access a publicly visible resource would be a policy disaster.

If I put a banner on my site that says "by visiting my site you agree not to modify the scripts or ads displayed on the site," does that make my visit with an ad blocker "unauthorized" under the CFAA? I think the answer should obviously be "no," and that the way to define "authorization" is whether the website puts up some kind of login/authentication mechanism to block or allow specific users, not to put a simple request to the visiting public to please respect the rules of the site.

To me, a robots.txt is more like a friendly request to unauthenticated visitors than it is a technical implementation of some kind of authentication mechanism.

Scraping isn't hacking. I agree with the Third Circuit and the EFF: If the website owner makes a resource available to visitors without authentication, then accessing those resources isn't a crime, even if the website owner didn't intend for site visitors to use that specific method.

[–] Glitchvid@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (10 children)

When sites put challenges like Anubis or other measures to authenticate that the viewer isn't a robot, and scrapers then employ measures to thwart that authentication (via spoofing or other means) I think that's a reasonable violation of the CFAA in spirit — especially since these mass scraping activities are getting attention for the damage they are causing to site operators (another factor in the CFAA, and one that would promote this to felony activity.)

The fact is these laws are already on the books, we may as well utilize them to shut down this objectively harmful activity AI scrapers are doing.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They already prosecute people under the unauthorized access provision. They just don’t prosecute rich people under it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 245 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's difficult to be a shittier company than OpenAI, but Perplexity seems to be trying hard.

[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 72 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Step 1, SOMEHOW find a more punchable face than Altman

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 155 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is a nice CloudFlare ad

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (13 children)

yeah. still not worth dealing with fucking cloudflare. fuck cloudflare.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 106 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

Perplexity argues that a platform’s inability to differentiate between helpful AI assistants and harmful bots causes misclassification of legitimate web traffic.

So, I assume Perplexity uses appropriate identifiable user-agent headers, to allow hosters to decide whether to serve them one way or another?

[–] lime@feddit.nu 39 points 1 week ago (4 children)

yeah it's almost like there as already a system for this in place

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 94 points 1 week ago
[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 75 points 1 week ago

Traveling snake oil salesman complains he can't pick people's locks.

[–] Amberskin@europe.pub 73 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Uh, are they admitting they are trying to circumvent technological protections setup to restrict access to a system?

Isn’t that a literal computer crime?

[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 47 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No-no, see. When an AI-first company does it, it's actually called courageous innovation. Crimes are for poor people

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tibi@lemmy.world 70 points 1 week ago

You could say they are... Perplexed.

[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 68 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 54 points 1 week ago

As far as security is concerned, their w's are pretty common tbh. It's just the whole centralization issue.

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 58 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That’s the entire point, dipshit. I wish we got one of the cool techno dystopias rather than this boring corporate idiot one.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] EtherWhack@lemmy.world 52 points 1 week ago
[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 51 points 1 week ago (3 children)

You'd think that a competent technology company, with their own AI would be able to figure out a way to spoof Cloudflare's checks. I'd still think that.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 69 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Or find a more efficient way to manage data, since their current approach is basically DDOSing the internet for training data and also for responding to user interactions.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 30 points 1 week ago

see, but they're not competent. further, they don't care. most of these ai companies are snake oil. they're selling you a solution that doesn't meaningfully solve a problem. their main way of surviving is saying "this is what it can do now, just imagine what it can do if you invest money in my company."

they're scammers, the lot of them, running ponzi schemes with our money. if the planet dies for it, that's no concern of theirs. ponzi schemes require the schemer to have no long term plan, just a line of credit that they can keep drawing from until they skip town before the tax collector comes

[–] lemmyng@piefed.ca 21 points 1 week ago

Perplexity: "But that would cost us moneeyyyy!"

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 47 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Good. I went through my CF panel, and blocked some of those "AI Assistants" that by default were open, including Perplexity's.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] prex@aussie.zone 26 points 1 week ago

They tried nothing & they're all out of ideas.

[–] Electricd@lemmybefree.net 38 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't like cloudflare but it's nice that they allow people to stop AI scrapping if they want to

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 week ago (4 children)

CloudFlare has become an Internet protection racket and I'm not happy about it.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 21 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It's been this from the very beginning. But they don't fit the definition of a protection racket as they're not the ones attacking you if you don't pay up. So they're more like a security company that has no competitors due to the needed investment to operate.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Can't believe I've lived to see Cloudflare be the good guys

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 34 points 1 week ago

Well... Good.

[–] wosat@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago

This is why companies like Perplexity and OpenAI are creating browsers.

good, that means it’s working

I’m gonna be frustrated (though not surprised) if the response is anything other than this.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Skill issue. Cope and seethe

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

I set up a WAF for my company's publicly facing developer portal to block out bot traffic from assholes like these guys. It reduced bot traffic to the site by something like - I kid you not - 99.999%.

Fucking data vultures.

[–] Ekybio@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Can someone with more knowledge shine a bit more light on this while situation? Im out of the loop on the technical details

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 56 points 1 week ago

AI crawlers tend to overwhelm websites by doing the least efficient scraping of data possible, basically DDOSing a huge portion of the internet. Perplexity already scraped the net for training data and is now hammering it inefficiently for searches.

Cloudflare is just trying to keep the bots from overwhelming everything.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

Cloudflare runs as a CDN/cache/gateway service in front of a ton of websites. Their service is to help protect against DDOS and malicious traffic.

A few weeks ago cloudflare announced they were going to block AI crawling (good, in my opinion). However they also added a paid service that these AI crawlers can use, so it actually becomes a revenue source for them.

This is a response to that from Perplexity who run an AI search company. I don’t actually know how their service works, but they were specifically called out in the announcement and Cloudflare accused them of “stealth scraping” and ignoring robots.txt and other things.

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

A few weeks ago cloudflare announced they were going to block AI crawling (good, in my opinion). However they also added a paid service that these AI crawlers can use, so it actually becomes a revenue source for them.

I think it's also worth pointing out that all of the big AI companies are currently burning through cash at an absolutely astonishing rate, and none of them are anywhere close to being profitable. So pay-walling the data they use is probably gonna be pretty painful for their already-tortured bottom line (good).

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (11 children)

Perplexity (an "AI search engine" company with 500 million in funding) can't bypass cloudflare's anti-bot checks. For each search Perplexity scrapes the top results and summarizes them for the user. Cloudflare intentionally blocks perplexity's scrapers because they ignore robots.txt and mimic real users to get around cloudflare's blocking features. Perplexity argues that their scraping is acceptable because it's user initiated.

Personally I think cloudflare is in the right here. The scraped sites get 0 revenue from Perplexity searches (unless the user decides to go through the sources section and click the links) and Perplexity's scraping is unnecessarily traffic intensive since they don't cache the scraped data.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Ermiar@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BaroqueInMind@piefed.social 19 points 1 week ago

Cry more, Perplexity.

[–] SugarCatDestroyer@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

It seems like it's some kind of distraction to make people think things aren't as bad as they really are, it just sounds too far-fetched to me.

It's like a bear that has eaten too much and starts whining because a small rabbit is running away from him, even though the bear has already eaten almost all the rabbits and is clearly full.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›