And, we already live in a world where website owners can legally dictate exactly what software you use to access their content. They can require that you log in with specific browsers running specific software on your computer, they way online schools run exam proxies.
[–] stickfigure 2 days ago
[–] trollbridge 2 days ago
I can’t go scrape New York Times articles and make copies of them without first licensing them from NYT.
[–] BizarroLand 2 days ago
It is wrong to pretend you are deaf to get out of an awkward conversation. No one is going to put cuffs on you for that.
[–] stickfigure 2 days ago
Ignoring robots.txt is not wrong. That's my opinion, just as valid as yours.
It also happens that the legal system agrees with my opinion of the wrongness of this act.
Also, you did say this:
> where website owners can legally dictate
Which is, as I pointed out, false.
A website can block Xyz user agent, put Xyz in robots.txt, or even put "No using Xyz!" in a popup and you cannot be prosecuted for using Xyz. It might be hard for you to evade their requirements, but it's not illegal.
Whether or not it's wrong is a matter of opinion. Yours differs from mine, that's fine.