How to block AI Crawler Bots using robots.txt filewww.cyberciti.bizexternal-link Cynicus Rex ( @CynicusRex@lemmy.ml ) Privacy@lemmy.mlEnglish • 1 month ago message-square18fedilinkarrow-up166
arrow-up166external-linkHow to block AI Crawler Bots using robots.txt filewww.cyberciti.biz Cynicus Rex ( @CynicusRex@lemmy.ml ) Privacy@lemmy.mlEnglish • 1 month ago message-square18fedilink
minus-square Da Bald Eagul ( @dabaldeagul@feddit.nl ) linkfedilink27•1 month agoThat is what they meant, yes. The title promises a block, completely preventing crawlers from accessing the site. That is not what is delivered.
minus-square JackbyDev ( @JackbyDev@programming.dev ) linkfedilinkEnglish3•1 month agoIs it a lie or a simplification for beginners?
minus-square thanks_shakey_snake ( @thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca ) linkfedilink9•1 month agoLie. Or at best, dangerously wrong. Like saying “Crosswalks make cars incapable of harming pedestrians who stay within them.”
minus-square JackbyDev ( @JackbyDev@programming.dev ) linkfedilinkEnglish1•1 month agoIt’s better than saying something like “there’s no point in robots.txt because bots can disobey is” though.
minus-square thanks_shakey_snake ( @thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca ) linkfedilink3•1 month agoMaybe? But it’s not like that’s the only alternative thing to say, lol
minus-square ReversalHatchery ( @ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org ) linkfedilinkEnglish2•edit-21 month agoIs it, though? I mean, robots.txt is the Do Not Track of the opposite side of the connection.
minus-square mox ( @mox@lemmy.sdf.org ) linkfedilink3•1 month agoAssuring 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.
That is what they meant, yes. The title promises a block, completely preventing crawlers from accessing the site. That is not what is delivered.
Is it a lie or a simplification for beginners?
Lie. Or at best, dangerously wrong. Like saying “Crosswalks make cars incapable of harming pedestrians who stay within them.”
It’s better than saying something like “there’s no point in robots.txt because bots can disobey is” though.
Maybe? But it’s not like that’s the only alternative thing to say, lol
Is it, though?
I mean, robots.txt is the Do Not Track of the opposite side of the connection.
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.