8 ms·
I too am astonished over some people's vitriol on the subject. I saw someone post over the weekend that said that they'll refuse to use #nobot since it's opt-ou
by init2null 4y ago
I too am astonished over some people's vitriol on the subject. I saw someone post over the weekend that said that they'll refuse to use #nobot since it's opt-out, and they'll instead just file GPDR requests against the companies that try to follow them. They demand opt-in.
It was certainly a fiery post, but this is how the web has worked since forever. Whether it's robots.txt or #nobots, opting out is required. After all, you're putting the content out there. In the end, this should be addressed by modern clients: "Do you want your posts to be searchable and your following list to be used for recommendations? Yes, No" and add #nobots if they decline.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- adolph 4y agoFfs if you don’t want an http uri anon accessible, apply authzn. Has the world gone mad?
- thwarted 4y ago>Whether it's robots.txt or #nobots, opting out is required. After all, you're putting the content out there. Anyone who is putting content on the internet is explicitly "opting in" to the content being on the internet, with all the rights, privileges, advantages, and disadvantages thereof. They can elect to make their wishes about content sharing known by using things like robots.txt and #nobots, but those are merely weak guidelines, and by then it's too late anyway since they've already opted-in by putting their content in an easily accessible location. Kind of disingenuous to stand on a street corner with a bullhorn and then get pissed that someone heard you and remembered what you said.
- zmgsabst 4y agoYou can, however, sue that person for repeating your story verbatim under copyright — even if you performed it publicly. This happens literally all the time with music: broadcast is not a license to redistribute or otherwise commercially use content.