this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
75 points (77.0% liked)

Privacy

31876 readers
1 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 25 points 10 months ago (9 children)

This article lies to the reader, so it earns a -1 from me.

[–] CynicusRex@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Lies, as in that it's not really “blocking” but a mere unenforceable request? If you meant something else could you please point it out?

[–] dabaldeagul@feddit.nl 36 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That is what they meant, yes. The title promises a block, completely preventing crawlers from accessing the site. That is not what is delivered.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Is it a lie or a simplification for beginners?

[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Lie. Or at best, dangerously wrong. Like saying "Crosswalks make cars incapable of harming pedestrians who stay within them."

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev -4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's better than saying something like "there's no point in robots.txt because bots can disobey is" though.

[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago

Maybe? But it's not like that's the only alternative thing to say, lol

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Is it, though?

I mean, robots.txt is the Do Not Track of the opposite side of the connection.

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 10 months ago

Assuring someone that they have control of something and the safety that comes with it, when in fact they do not, is well outside the realm of a simplification. It's just plain false. It can even be dangerous.

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

the word disallow is right there

load more comments (7 replies)