I think this title is overstated. It seems like Brave is trying to do the right thing here vs other companies that don't even make the attempt. (Also, crawling as a service has been a thing for a while.)
> It seems like Brave is trying to do the right thing here vs other companies that don't even make the attempt
I feel like I'm missing something. What the article claims they're doing is:
1. Misrepresenting what rights they have, and selling access to those rights.
2. Stealth-crawling the web, hiding from the webmasters just how much Brave is crawling their site, and making it impossible to block just their crawler.
How is either of these the right thing? I mean, for somebody besides Brave. What "attempt" are they making that other companies aren't?
I think the first one seems to be a case where Brave just has incomplete information about licensing so for the Wikipedia data and other CCthey need to provide a link.
The second doesn't seem like a problem to me as long as they respect robots.txt
You didn't actually answer the question, at best you've sidestepped it by claiming that the dodgy shit is either by accident, or really not that bad. Maybe so.
But your original claim wasn't just "Brave are technically not doing anything illegal" or "they're no worse than the others". It was praising them for being better than the others, that they're the only ones trying to do the right thing. And for these example it's just not true, they're outright worse than the industry standard.
So, to repeat, what makes you think that "Brave is trying to do the right thing while other companies aren't even attempting"?
I think you're missing the point. This is one example that uses a specific license, there are countless other licenses.
And you don't seem to have read the article either, because clearly it was explained that they don't respect robots.txt because they have no user-agent.
> Is there something wrong with accessing information that someone has posted for public access?
The Wikipedia example is glaring. They’re scraping content, stripping attribution and reselling it with a right to lock it down in a way that is not allowed by the original license.
Brave is laundering copyleft content while lying to their customers by selling a license they can’t give. If you’d like, you can sidestep the morality of copyright entirely and focus on the plagiarism and fraud.
Yes. Legalities aside, stripping attribution (author names) from contents which specifically requires keeping it, it a really shitty thing to do.
(The fact that they include original URL does not change much, given that they explicitly market it as "Data for AI" and those systems never have attribution)
anything biden did (between 3 and 5 trillion extra), was after and on top of trumps spending.
so if trumps 2.2 was bad, what do you think supercharging that was?
it’s like i filled a bathtub 80% and left. and then you come and add 120% of its capacity and overflow it. Then blame me for filling 80%
and btw the context in 2020 was differnt, we had to act and we were unsure about pandemic. biden’s spending was after we had a vaccine and knew the extent
If a paper doesn't have that many caveats it won't get published. Scientists, good ones anyway, are rarely able to speak definitively about almost anything, especially something as hard to study as this.
Banning sale just moves the problem. The carriers have already mostly stopped "selling" the data by moving the advertising analytics and other mining in house and selling access to that instead of the raw data. They probably make more money on the analytics than just the raw data, win win for them.
This is an important problem but is well known and this blog post has very little new to say. Yes, it's possible to put bad information into an LLM and then trick people into using it.
Dismaying to see the reactions to this range from denial to complacency to wishful thinking.
Climate forcing has such momentum that it takes two decades for the full impact of emissions to be felt and many more for cascading impacts. The fires we're seeing? The droughts? The floods? That's from emissions from the early 2000s, before China and India embarked on rapid industrialization and growth of energy use, especially coal.
This isn't the apocalypse either. It's just something of a scale we've never faced in human records, like what the Mayans faced at the end of their civilization but global.
Do you have a rabbit hole entry point for the downfall of the Mayan civilization, specifically the climate factors? It's a civilization and series of events I know little about but is fascinating.
The end of the Classic period? Sure. The 200 year drought did not help by reducing agricultural capacity and the political upheaval tanked any ability to adapt of much of the cities.
But it was the resulting warfare from all that that really fucked then up.
But post-classical Mayan civilization was still healthy and large in scale. Just not the same kind of thing.
It would be a mistake to say their civilization ended then. It simply changed.
The Spanish killed it though. Killed it so systematically it became myth for centuries
Hm, I don't see the similarity then. The Spanish were deliberate and malicious. Climate change is a consequence of our own actions, although the accounting needs work.
How many predictions of "catastrophic climate change" have actually come true in the past few decades? Some of us have lived long enough to realise the truth.
MANY. This is the most annoying case of confirmation bias.
Climatologists make predictions in terms of probabilities. “If emissions go up X amount then we will see Y increase in likelihood of impact Z”. They can’t predict a specific future. Our climate is a single instantiation of many possible climates, and climate prediction is a matter of characterizing the possibilities.
The vast majority of predictions from actual climatologists has/is occurring. From increasing mean temperatures, to increasing hurricane intensity and frequency, to marine life impacts (eg Maine lobsters are migrating so far north they won’t be Maine lobsters soon), to decreasing sea ice, to innumerable ecological impacts. ALL of that was predicted. Accurate temperature predictions go back 150 years.
They can’t predict “sea ice will diminish to exactly this amount by year 2023,” they make probabilistic statements about how mean sea ice will decline per decade. They can’t say “in year 2040 all the lobsters will be gone,” they say the mean lobster population will migrate north to cooler water.
I assume you heard a few reporters make specific claims about a hurricane hitting your town or something, but they missed the point. Maybe you watched too many fictional movies. That line of reasoning is utter propaganda that you’re spreading. It’s antiscientific, unsubstantiated lies.
No one under the age of 40 has seen a record low month. The number if record highs continue to increase, year over year. The number of record lows continues to decrease, year over year. Average humidity increases year over year as the oceans warm.
And the oceans are warming as well.
The climate models Exxon ran in the 1980s predicting widespread warming were frighteningly accurate.
The only way you can rationally argue with the numbers is to provide measurements which indicate the opposite. But you can’t, so you question the motives of those who chose wisdom over polemics.
Up here in the Canada we see record lows too. But we also see record highs. The instability of the jet stream makes both our extremes more so, and we get hit with the bad conditions on both ends.
Yes, some of us have lived long enough to realize the truth; The truth is that those scientists decades ago who warned us all about exactly the things we see in the news daily these days were right then, and still right today. We should have taken action then instead of wasting decades allowing the problem to get so far out of control.
Not many. We’ve consistently overshoot worst case predictions.
Many of the heat waves, hurricanes and first fires we’ve seen weren’t predicted to occur until 2030s.
People in North America and Europe of course enjoy the best climate and see the effects the slowest from climate change.
One way to accurately judge climate change is to count the number and frequency of extreme events. How many 100 year weather events have you seen? How many 500 or 1000 year weather events have you seen? How many once in human history, like the drought in China have you lived through?
The fact that North America and Europe enjoy the best climate is predicated on the Gulf Stream and the Jet Stream. Given that climate change may destabilize both, both Europe and North America may experience the effects from climate change very quickly.
I find that surprising. Look at https://mathstodon.xyz/about and some of the world's leading mathematicians (among those who are online) are there. In computer science expertise is more diverse and distributed so the users are spread across many servers.
