this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
818 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

74545 readers
3740 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Glitchvid@lemmy.world 245 points 1 week ago (3 children)

When a firm outright admits to bypassing or trying to bypass measures taken to keep them out, you think that would be a slam dunk case of unauthorized access under the CFAA with felony enhancements.

[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 96 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Fuck that. I don't need prosecutors and the courts to rule that accessing publicly available information in a way that the website owner doesn't want is literally a crime. That logic would extend to ad blockers and editing HTML/js in an "inspect element" tag.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 57 points 1 week ago (35 children)

That logic would not extend to ad blockers, as the point of concern is gaining unauthorized access to a computer system or asset. Blocking ads would not be considered gaining unauthorized access to anything. In fact it would be the opposite of that.

load more comments (35 replies)
[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They already prosecute people under the unauthorized access provision. They just don’t prosecute rich people under it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 236 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's difficult to be a shittier company than OpenAI, but Perplexity seems to be trying hard.

[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 70 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Step 1, SOMEHOW find a more punchable face than Altman

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 146 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is a nice CloudFlare ad

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (13 children)

yeah. still not worth dealing with fucking cloudflare. fuck cloudflare.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 102 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

Perplexity argues that a platform’s inability to differentiate between helpful AI assistants and harmful bots causes misclassification of legitimate web traffic.

So, I assume Perplexity uses appropriate identifiable user-agent headers, to allow hosters to decide whether to serve them one way or another?

[–] lime@feddit.nu 37 points 1 week ago (4 children)

yeah it's almost like there as already a system for this in place

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 90 points 1 week ago
[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 70 points 1 week ago

Traveling snake oil salesman complains he can't pick people's locks.

[–] Amberskin@europe.pub 70 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Uh, are they admitting they are trying to circumvent technological protections setup to restrict access to a system?

Isn’t that a literal computer crime?

[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No-no, see. When an AI-first company does it, it's actually called courageous innovation. Crimes are for poor people

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tibi@lemmy.world 66 points 1 week ago

You could say they are... Perplexed.

[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 64 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 50 points 1 week ago

As far as security is concerned, their w's are pretty common tbh. It's just the whole centralization issue.

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 54 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That’s the entire point, dipshit. I wish we got one of the cool techno dystopias rather than this boring corporate idiot one.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] EtherWhack@lemmy.world 49 points 1 week ago
[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 48 points 1 week ago (3 children)

You'd think that a competent technology company, with their own AI would be able to figure out a way to spoof Cloudflare's checks. I'd still think that.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 66 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Or find a more efficient way to manage data, since their current approach is basically DDOSing the internet for training data and also for responding to user interactions.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 29 points 1 week ago

see, but they're not competent. further, they don't care. most of these ai companies are snake oil. they're selling you a solution that doesn't meaningfully solve a problem. their main way of surviving is saying "this is what it can do now, just imagine what it can do if you invest money in my company."

they're scammers, the lot of them, running ponzi schemes with our money. if the planet dies for it, that's no concern of theirs. ponzi schemes require the schemer to have no long term plan, just a line of credit that they can keep drawing from until they skip town before the tax collector comes

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 44 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Good. I went through my CF panel, and blocked some of those "AI Assistants" that by default were open, including Perplexity's.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Electricd@lemmybefree.net 37 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't like cloudflare but it's nice that they allow people to stop AI scrapping if they want to

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 week ago (4 children)

CloudFlare has become an Internet protection racket and I'm not happy about it.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 21 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It's been this from the very beginning. But they don't fit the definition of a protection racket as they're not the ones attacking you if you don't pay up. So they're more like a security company that has no competitors due to the needed investment to operate.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] prex@aussie.zone 24 points 1 week ago

They tried nothing & they're all out of ideas.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Can't believe I've lived to see Cloudflare be the good guys

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 31 points 1 week ago

Well... Good.

[–] wosat@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago

This is why companies like Perplexity and OpenAI are creating browsers.

good, that means it’s working

I’m gonna be frustrated (though not surprised) if the response is anything other than this.

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

I set up a WAF for my company's publicly facing developer portal to block out bot traffic from assholes like these guys. It reduced bot traffic to the site by something like - I kid you not - 99.999%.

Fucking data vultures.

[–] Ermiar@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›