Anyone who can look at the news and not understand never will.

We’re past the time of understanding the situation is my point. It’s time to riot.

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?

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.

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.