[diego_sandoval]

In general, I don't think people should have a moral right to decide where and how the data that they made public is used, or to decide if it can get scraped or not.

And, in general, I take the fact that you published something on the Internet as a tacit moral consentment for the rest of the world to use it how they want.

This comes with a couple of big asterisks, because (1) Copyright law exists, and I generally try to not break the law, even if I don't agree with it. But the discussion in this thread is mostly separate from copyright: for instance, I don't think a court would see someone scraping and redistributing data from someone's LinkedIn profile as a copyright infringement case.

And (2) because I think that in some specific cases, using published data can be morally wrong, but not as a general rule.

[out-of-ideas]

i somewhat agree; people volunteer it when posting anything online. but they also volunteer their advertising id on their phones (even if they dont know it) - just as they dont know (and dont care) they are the product when on websites like facebook

i feel the 'antibot' stuff is more related to the adtech industry vs site-scrapers - remember getting a dedicated server and having friends click on links just to pay for it? Geocities and all these free websites, the biggest costs were bandwidth and storage (not that its not now)

since the AI Boom, there's just more hype over people wanting 'credit' (or money) for something they posted on a forum X-units of time ago.

its called the World Wide Web for a reason.. keep it open, even if it is to 'a bot' - never know when somebody's 'bot software' is reading your webpage for somebody who has some disadvantage and needs assistance