From your own wiki link
robots.txt is the filename used for implementing the Robots Exclusion Protocol, a standard used by websites to indicate to visiting web crawlers and other web robots which portions of the website they are allowed to visit.
How is fedidb not an “other web robot”?
Robots.txt started I’m 1994.
It’s been a consensus for decades.
Why throw it out and replace it with imied consent to scrape?
That’s why I said legally there’s nothing they can do. If people want to scrape it they can and will.
This is strictly about consent. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should yes?
I guess I haven’t read a convincing argument yet why robots.txt should be ignored.
Why invent implied consent when complicit explicit has been the standard in robots.txt for ages now?
Legally speaking there’s nothing they can do. But this is about consent, not legality. So why use implied?
deleted by creator
Canadian here, most of Europe. We’re looking like we’re expecting Trump lite this year. Not to mention Harper was, a lot.
Sure, I don’t think any disagrees that there’s side effects that aren’t good for anyone, never mind teens.
But there’s nothing that you’ve written that’s specific to Tik Tok. It’s not substantially worse than American alternatives. Facebook has known for years the negative effect, study after study has come out. What legislation was passed to protect that?
So why target Tik Tok specifically?
Again, non of those have been legally banned in the US.
I’m not saying those companies don’t exist? Just answering the question of who the top commenter was referring to, which in my opinion is Tik Tok because it’s the only one being legally banned.
Tik Tok is the only tencent company I know if that’s been labeled a national security risk.
Tik Tok is what they’re referring to
You are using a device capable of finding the information you so desire. Instead you decided to contribute you whataboutism.
So who stores the login information? This is fundamentally the question here.
If you store it centrally you only need to ask for username/password combo.
But then someone needs to store it at a central location for everyone to check against.
If it’s not centralized than the user needs to provide it
Email has a hidden trick up its sleeve and that’s the domain name. In order for an email to be valid, the domain name must contain email info on its DNS records. There’s where you can imply knowledge about where the email/message is to go.
But here in lemmy, my email is just Gmail. There’s no way to find the information on where authentication could be located. Which brings me back to the top of centralization vs decentralization.
And now I’ll leave the earth, for no raisin!
The reason it doesn’t disprove it is because the assumption “time travel works” is really just saying, if we ignore some basic rules of physics, what happens to what’s left? It’s a nonesense premise to debate what is basically nothing more than science fiction.
Could the rules we know about the universe be wrong? Absolutely! But discovering those new rules is what will answer that question. Till then, we might as well try and say Harry Potter is just quantum mechanics.
legally speaking
Which law?
Because US law requires intent, but I’m not sure ICC/ICJ have the same requirements.
They were specifically told the itinerary of the aid workers.
“All three vehicles were carrying civilians; they were marked as WCK vehicles; and their movements were in full compliance with Israeli authorities, who were aware of their itinerary, route, and humanitarian mission,” WCK said in a statement Thursday.
I’m not sure how it can be accidental if you were told about it in advance.
And even if for a moment, that the person who aimed the guns didn’t know, it was someone’s job to make sure they did. Someone knew.
Okay,
So why should reinevent a standard when one that serves functionally the same purpose with one of implied consent?
Edit: my problem isn’t robots.txt. It’s implied consent.
If you are ever thinking, I wonder if I should ask, the answer is always yes. Doesn’t matter the situation. If you are not 1000% sure you have consent, you don’t. That’s just my ethics.
If you want to propose a new standard, go nuts. But implied consent is not it.