[skeledrew]

> bypassing a bot block is a violation of the owners right to decide whom to admit?

There is only a violation if the bot finds a way around a login block. Same for human. But whatever is on the public web is... public. For all.

[hunter2_]

So it's ok to block someone "because you didn't include a session token I gave you in exchange for knowing the password" but it's not ok to block someone "because you didn't stick to manually-operated user agents as I told you via robots.txt"? What about not letting someone play level 42 "because you didn't complete level 41"?

A web server providing a response to your request is akin to a restaurant server doing the same. Except for specific situations related to civil rights, they are free to not deal with you for any reason.

[skeledrew]

Typically when something is behind a login, it denotes a private space intended for a particular set of persons given explicit access. It's senseless to block people from using agents if the same people would otherwise have access, unless there is an abuse of that access, ie. action which is to the detriment of the space. And though some of that does happen, it obviously isn't the full story. I have a Perplexica instance running locally that I sometimes use (but often don't as Perplexity does a much better job). Should that also be blocked?

Hmm maybe a civil case could be potentially made here too, re disability. By blocking LLM use, sites are reducing the ability of select users to reasonably interact with the content. Just could become a thing in a few years if this nonsense continues.