We're past the time of understanding the situation is my point. It's time to riot.
WhoLooksHere
joined 11 months ago
And quibilling about how accurate a metaphor is at any given time is just as useful?
Let me try this.
It doesn't matter if the metaphor doesn't stay consistent or whatever.
Because anyone who would be swayed by a metaphor like that is already swayed. It's time to get in the streets.
That's not what a metaphor is?
It's an analogy, not a script. Of course it's not a perfect fit. Metaphors never do. And of course it changes and life itself changes.
Your getting mad about a metaphor when you should be getting mad about facsim itself. Getting mad at nothing is just distraction.
So what's your point then. That the may be fascist but the Hitler comparisons are a line to far for you?
Okay,
They're still fascist as fuck.
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.
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?
It wasn't scolding them (individual reporters) for doing their job.
It's scloding them (news orgs as a whole) for not doing it.
It's not hard to see a trump presidency sells more media with those rage bait headlines. They endorsed trump and refused to endorse Haris. I blame them for that.
No one is saying it shouldn't be documented. You just threw those words into someone's mouth.
What is laughable is to think news outlets are going to be the historical record. What is effectively propaganda at this point is documentation. They all know how to distract you with chaos headlines in the media for them to focus on while they do the actual messy work of taking people away.
Curious, how many bathroom bill reports have their been in the media?
The historical record will be remembered by what we were able to capture and publicise. Record every government interaction and put it on YouTube, tik Tok, your hard drive, somewhere. THATS what will fill the historical record.
view more: next ›
Anyone who can look at the news and not understand never will.