7 ms·

Its unethical because you're intentionally bypassing restrictions. Just because others do it doesn't mean its okay. If you saw a sign in a store that said "1 p

Its unethical because you're intentionally bypassing restrictions. Just because others do it doesn't mean its okay. If you saw a sign in a store that said "1 per person" or "for registered guests only", would you ignore it?

embedding-shape 3mo ago
> Its unethical because you're intentionally bypassing restrictions I'd still consider why the restriction is there and why I'm thinking of breaking it, before deciding if it's unethical or not. It depends, basically. Generally I follow the rules and restrictions, but maybe see them more as guidelines or suggestions.
orf 3mo ago
Was Rosa Parks unethical for sitting down on a bus? The point is that the context matters: both the users context and the context of the restriction. It’s not as clear cut as “ignoring restrictions = bad”. The restriction itself can be unethical, in the same way that bypassing a restriction can be unethical.
- BoorishBears 3mo ago
  Woah now, I'm for headless browsers but let's not start comparing any of this to Rosa Parks lol. The reality is a lot of interesting, trivially harmful to non harmful things are illegal and we still do them anyways.
- saintfire 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Dylan16807 3mo ago
    You're taking an analogy way too seriously so: you too.
- Natfan 3mo ago
  we need a new version of Godwin's Law after this comment. orf's law: > As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison with Rosa Parks approaches one."
  - orf 3mo ago
    > As a discussion regarding if it’s ethical to ignore restrictions progresses, the probability of someone bringing up a famous case where someone ignored unethical restrictions approaches one Seems reasonable to me. Substitute Rosa parks with another example of unethical restrictions if you wish - there are many.
  - pocksuppet 3mo ago
    Do you think it is a problem that someone said it's always unethical to violate a restrictions, and someone else brought up Rosa Parks? I propose a new law myself: as an online discussion gets longer, the probability of someone trying to defeat an argument by stating that it mentioned Rosa Parks or Hitler without engaging with the substance of that argument approaches one.
jamiequint 3mo ago
You're confusing law with ethics, they are not the same.
windexh8er 3mo ago
Look at what Google's doing right now with Chrome. On June 30 Chrome will remove the last flag that let uBlock keep working, and there's no workaround. Google says it's about security and performance, but is it? $239 billion in ad revenue last year seems to be the motivational factor. The "restriction" is a rule written by the company that profits when you can't block its ads, dressed up as protecting you. But... CISA recommends ad blockers as a defense against malware spread through ad networks. The rules aren't always right and sometimes have unintended consequences. I think a bigger issue than Browser Use is all of the copyrighted material in every LLM. Given that precedent has been set with zero legal consequences, I'm not sure there's much of a leg for you to stand on here.
kube-system 3mo ago
There are many ethical reasons to bypass restrictions. Colloquially, we just call them exceptions. There are many valid ethical exceptions for evading anti-bot detections. For example: you are a white hat actor scraping a black hat site. There are hundreds of other plausible examples.
inigyou 3mo ago
If the sign says 1 per person, the reason it's unethical to take more than 1 isn't because you're disobeying a sign - it's because someone else might not be able to get one, and the sign is indicating to you this is likely to be a problem. If the store is about to throw out all the unsold ones in 5 minutes, then ignoring the sign is completely ethical.

embedding-shape 3mo ago

> Its unethical because you're intentionally bypassing restrictions I'd still consider why the restriction is there and why I'm thinking of breaking it, before deciding if it's unethical or not. It depends, basically. Generally I follow the rules and restrictions, but maybe see them more as guidelines or suggestions.

orf 3mo ago

Was Rosa Parks unethical for sitting down on a bus? The point is that the context matters: both the users context and the context of the restriction. It’s not as clear cut as “ignoring restrictions = bad”. The restriction itself can be unethical, in the same way that bypassing a restriction can be unethical.

BoorishBears 3mo ago
Woah now, I'm for headless browsers but let's not start comparing any of this to Rosa Parks lol. The reality is a lot of interesting, trivially harmful to non harmful things are illegal and we still do them anyways.
saintfire 3mo ago
[flagged]
- Dylan16807 3mo ago
  You're taking an analogy way too seriously so: you too.
Natfan 3mo ago
we need a new version of Godwin's Law after this comment. orf's law: > As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison with Rosa Parks approaches one."
- orf 3mo ago
  > As a discussion regarding if it’s ethical to ignore restrictions progresses, the probability of someone bringing up a famous case where someone ignored unethical restrictions approaches one Seems reasonable to me. Substitute Rosa parks with another example of unethical restrictions if you wish - there are many.
- pocksuppet 3mo ago
  Do you think it is a problem that someone said it's always unethical to violate a restrictions, and someone else brought up Rosa Parks? I propose a new law myself: as an online discussion gets longer, the probability of someone trying to defeat an argument by stating that it mentioned Rosa Parks or Hitler without engaging with the substance of that argument approaches one.

jamiequint 3mo ago

You're confusing law with ethics, they are not the same.

windexh8er 3mo ago

Look at what Google's doing right now with Chrome. On June 30 Chrome will remove the last flag that let uBlock keep working, and there's no workaround. Google says it's about security and performance, but is it? $239 billion in ad revenue last year seems to be the motivational factor. The "restriction" is a rule written by the company that profits when you can't block its ads, dressed up as protecting you. But... CISA recommends ad blockers as a defense against malware spread through ad networks. The rules aren't always right and sometimes have unintended consequences. I think a bigger issue than Browser Use is all of the copyrighted material in every LLM. Given that precedent has been set with zero legal consequences, I'm not sure there's much of a leg for you to stand on here.

kube-system 3mo ago

There are many ethical reasons to bypass restrictions. Colloquially, we just call them exceptions. There are many valid ethical exceptions for evading anti-bot detections. For example: you are a white hat actor scraping a black hat site. There are hundreds of other plausible examples.

inigyou 3mo ago

If the sign says 1 per person, the reason it's unethical to take more than 1 isn't because you're disobeying a sign - it's because someone else might not be able to get one, and the sign is indicating to you this is likely to be a problem. If the store is about to throw out all the unsold ones in 5 minutes, then ignoring the sign is completely ethical.