Fabio Manganiello on Nostr: npub1r9jrh…w4h54 see https://social.platypush.tech/@blacklight/110852894403019575 ...
npub1r9jrhg4d249sn7z7pyunpsa9zcdr7rjtg90x3w3e78a7jrp7wadsvw4h54 (npub1r9j…4h54) see https://social.platypush.tech/@blacklight/110852894403019575
I'm actually fine with a full machine-readable web where open information can be used by whoever for whatever within the boundaries of law.
After all, this was exactly the dream of the semantic web that we had 10-15 years ago.
As a big scraping advocate, I don't want to end up in the position where I like scraping when it's me doing it while I condemn it when it's Google.
But things need to be symmetric in order to work.
I also expect from Google and friends the same level of coherence and intellectual honesty that I try to impose on myself.
Google shouldn't advocate for their right to scrape the web and then harass the developers of youtube-dl.
They should allow me to legally scrape YouTube videos, so I can use music and speech snippets to train my own models.
They should provide an RSS interface for their search results, so I can integrate them into other products or do my analysis on them. If those results were generated by scraping openly available information, then those results themselves should be openly available too.
They should also provide an RSS interface for their news results, for the same principle - it's scraped and digested content, so they can't lock it up.
They should also provide access to their data via open protocols (e.g. pure IMAP for Gmail, WebDAV for calendar and contacts, XMPP for whatever messaging system they're pushing now...), so they can really prove their commitment to a web where knowledge can easily be exchanged between machines without barriers.
Until they do it, I defend my right to call them out as hypocrites.
My problem is not with them scraping the web. My problem is with them not allowing me to legally do the same with their products.
I'm actually fine with a full machine-readable web where open information can be used by whoever for whatever within the boundaries of law.
After all, this was exactly the dream of the semantic web that we had 10-15 years ago.
As a big scraping advocate, I don't want to end up in the position where I like scraping when it's me doing it while I condemn it when it's Google.
But things need to be symmetric in order to work.
I also expect from Google and friends the same level of coherence and intellectual honesty that I try to impose on myself.
Google shouldn't advocate for their right to scrape the web and then harass the developers of youtube-dl.
They should allow me to legally scrape YouTube videos, so I can use music and speech snippets to train my own models.
They should provide an RSS interface for their search results, so I can integrate them into other products or do my analysis on them. If those results were generated by scraping openly available information, then those results themselves should be openly available too.
They should also provide an RSS interface for their news results, for the same principle - it's scraped and digested content, so they can't lock it up.
They should also provide access to their data via open protocols (e.g. pure IMAP for Gmail, WebDAV for calendar and contacts, XMPP for whatever messaging system they're pushing now...), so they can really prove their commitment to a web where knowledge can easily be exchanged between machines without barriers.
Until they do it, I defend my right to call them out as hypocrites.
My problem is not with them scraping the web. My problem is with them not allowing me to legally do the same with their products.