Recaptcha v2 does way more than check if the box was checked.

How does Google reCAPTCHA v2 work behind the scenes?

This post refers to Google ReCaptcha v2 (not the latest version) Recently Google introduced a simplified "captcha" verification system (video) that enables users to pass the "captcha" just by clic...

Stack Overflow (stackoverflow.com)

Site owners currently do and should have the freedom to decide who is and is not allowed to access the data, and to decide for what purpose it gets used for. Idgaf if you think scraping is malicious or not, it is and should be illegal to violate clear and obvious barriers against them at the cost of the owners and unsanctioned profit of the scrapers off of the work of the site owners.

That all sounds very vague to me, and I don’t expect it to be captured properly by law any time soon.

It already has been captured, properly in law, in most places. We can use the US as an example: Both intellectual property and real property have laws already that cover these very items.

What does it mean for you and how is it different from being accessed by a user?

Well, does a user burn up gigawatts of power, to access my site every time? That's a huge different.

Imagine you host a weather forecast. If that information is public, what kind of compensation do you expect from anyone or anything who accesses that data?

Depends on the terms of service I set for that service.

Is it okay for a person to access your site?

Sure!

Is it okay for a script written by that person to fetch data every day automatically?

Sure! As long as it doesn't cause problems for me, the creator and hoster of said content.

Would it be okay for a user to dump a page of your site with a headless browser?

See above. Both power usage and causing problems for me.

Would it be okay to let an LLM take a look at it to extract info required by a user?

No. I said, I do not want my content and services to be used by and for LLMs.

Have you heard about changedetection.io project?

I have now. And should a user want to use that service, that service, which charges 8.99/month for it needs to pay me a portion of that, or risk having their service blocked.

There no need to use it, as I already provide RSS feeds for my content. Use the RSS feed, if you want updates.

If some of these sound unfair to you, you might want to put a DRM on your data or something.

Or, I can just block them, via a service like Cloud Flare. Which I do.

Would you expect a compensation from me after reading your comment?

None. Unless you're wanting to access if via an LLM. Then I want compensation for the profit driven access to my content.

to decide for what purpose it gets used for

Yeah, fuck everything about that. If I'm a site visitor I should be able to do what I want with the data you send me. If I bypass your ads, or use your words to write a newspaper article that you don't like, tough shit. Publishing information is choosing not to control what happens to the information after it leaves your control.

Don't like it? Make me sign an NDA. And even then, violating an NDA isn't a crime, much less a felony punishable by years of prison time.

Interpreting the CFAA to cover scraping is absurd and draconian.

If you want anybody and everyone to be able to use everything you post for any purpose, right on, good for you, but don't try to force your morality on others who rely on their writing, programming, and artworks to make a living to survive.

I'm gonna continue to use ad blockers and yt-dlp, and if you think I'm a criminal for doing so, I'm gonna say you don't understand either technology or criminal law.

Both intellectual property and real property have laws already that cover these very items.

And it causes a lot of trouble to many people and pains me specifically. Information should not be gated or owned in a way that would make it illegal for anyone to access it under proper conditions. License expiration causing digital work to die out, DRM causing software to break, idiotic license owners not providing appropriate service, etc.

Well, does a user burn up gigawatts of power, to access my site every time?

Doing a GET request doesn't do that.

As long as it doesn't cause problems for me, the creator and hoster of said content.

What kind of problems that would be?

Both power usage and causing problems for me.

?? How? And what?

do not want my content and services to be used by and for LLMs.

You have to agree that at one point "be used by LLM" would not be different from "be used by a user".

which charges 8.99/month

It's self-hosted and free.

Use the RSS feed, if you want updates.

How does that prohibit usage and processing of your info? That sounds like "I won't be providing any comments on Lemmy website, if you want my opinion you can mail me at a@b.com"

I can just block them, via a service like Cloud Flare. Which I do.

That will never block all of them. Your info will be used without your consent and you will not feel troubled from it. So you might not feel troubled if more things do the same.

None. Unless you're wanting to access if via an LLM. Then I want compensation for the profit driven access to my content.

What if I use my local hosted LLM? Anyway, the point is, selling text can't work well, and you're going to spend much more resources on collecting and summarizing data about how your text was used and how others benefited from it, in order to get compensation, than it worths.

Also, it might be the case that some information is actually worthless when compared to a service provided by things like LLM, even though they use that worthless information in the process.

I'm all for killing off LLMs, btw. Concerns of site makers who think they are being damaged by things like Perplexity are nothing compared to what LLMs do to the world. Maybe laws should instead make it illegal to waste energy. Before energy becomes the main currency.

Information should not be gated or owned in a way that would make it illegal for anyone to access it under proper conditions.

Then you don't believe content creators should have any control over their own works?

The "proper conditions" are deemed by the content creator, not the consumers.

Doing a GET request doesn’t do that.

Not at all. It consumes at most, a watt.

What kind of problems that would be?

Increasing my hosting bill, to accommodate the senseless traffic being sent my way?

Outages for my site, making my content unavailable for legitimate users?

You have to agree that at one point “be used by LLM” would not be different from “be used by a user”.

Not at all. LLMs are not users.

It’s self-hosted and free.

If you want, or they charge for the hosted version. If they want to use a paid for version, then they can divert some of that revenue to me, the creator, because without creators, they would have no product.

How does that prohibit usage and processing of your info? That sounds like “I won’t be providing any comments on Lemmy website, if you want my opinion you can mail me at a@b.com”

That's a apples and oranges comparison, and you know it.

That will never block all of them. Your info will be used without your consent and you will not feel troubled from it. So you might not feel troubled if more things do the same.

Perplexity seems to be troubled by it.

What if I use my local hosted LLM? Anyway, the point is, selling text can’t work well, and you’re going to spend much more resources on collecting and summarizing data about how your text was used and how others benefited from it, in order to get compensation, than it worths.

If selling text can't work well, then why do LLM products insist on using my text, to sell it?

Also, it might be the case that some information is actually worthless when compared to a service provided by things like LLM, even though they use that worthless information in the process.

LLMs are a net negative, as far as costs go. They consume far more in resources than they provide in benefit. If my information was worthless without an LLM, it's worthless with an LLM, therefore, LLMs don't need to access it. Periodt.

The bottom line? Content creators get the first say in how their content is used, and consumed. You are not entitled to their labor, for free, and without condition.

Don't feel like spending time on this anymore. To me you are not different from idiots who destroys information once they can't sell it anymore, who sue webarchive, who calls pirated copy a lost sale, who shut down game servers etc. LLM might be worse than those but Perplexity is certainly a lesser player in the field.

Thats a crime yeah and if Alphabet co wants to sue you for $1.34 damages then they have that right, just as we should have the right to sue them if their AI crawlers make our site unusable and plagiarize our work to the effect of thousands of dollars, or even press charges for the criminal act of intentional disruption of services.

Thats a crime yeah and if Alphabet co wants to sue you for $1.34 damages then they have that right

So yeah, I stand by my statement that anyone thinks this is a crime, or should be a crime, has a poor understanding of either the technology or the law. In this case, even mentioning Alphabet suing for damages means that you don't know the difference between criminal law and civil law.

press charges for the criminal act of intentional disruption of services

That's not a crime, and again reveals gaps in your knowledge on this topic.