 “Those who make a profit from the information” produced by
media companies should participate in their financing."

It's depressing to see so many examples of the abysmal understanding of the
internet that so many politicians seem to have. Ignorance can be forgiven to a
certain extent, but not even making an attempt to try to understand the
situation - just spending five minutes on google or wikipedia researching the
Googlebot will tell you about robots.txt - is inexcusable.

Public and state ignorance of computers and the internet are leading us down a
very dark path; there needs to be an effort to try to educate our political
representatives, or we risk a future where legislation like SOPA is passed
purely out of ignorance of what it means.

~~~
taligent
> just spending five minutes on google or wikipedia researching the Googlebot
> will tell you about robots.txt

So basically your position is binary: Either don't allow your site to be
indexed by Google or accept that they are going to profit from your content.

If you don't see why companies and governments see more shades of grey in this
situation then the only person who is ignorant is you.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
>So basically your position is binary: Either don't allow your site to be
indexed by Google or accept that they are going to profit from your content.

Nonsense. If you want to put "no access" in robots.txt and then go to Google
and negotiate a fee from them for removing it, you're perfectly entitled to do
that. But you know perfectly well that the value of search traffic to your
site is worth more to you than the value of indexing your site is worth to
Google or any other web search engine, so any such negotiation is not going to
end with a payment from the search engine to you.

And passing a law _wouldn't even change that_. All it would do is create an
explosion of transaction costs as every single website has to negotiate with
every search engine to _not_ pay to be included in the index. Which if
anything would only cement Google's dominant position in web search forever as
any of its smaller competitors are bankrupted by transaction costs. Unless, of
course, the law allowed some kind of standard technological means of allowing
a site to specify that it doesn't require any payment to
“ Those who make a profit from the information ” produced by 
 medium ship's company should participate in their financing. " 

 It's depressing to visualize then many examples of the abysmal understanding of the 
 internet that indeed many politician seem to have. Ignorance can be forgiven to a 
 certain extent, but not even take an attempt to try to sympathize the 
 situation - just spending five minutes on google or wikipedia researching the 
 Googlebot will tell you about robots.txt - is inexcusable. 

 Public and state ignorance of computer and the internet are leading us down a 
 very dark path; there need to be an effort to try to educate our political 
 representative, or we risk a future where legislation like SOPA is passed 
 purely out of ignorance of what it means. 

 ~~~ 
 taligent 
 > just spend five minutes on google or wikipedia researching the Googlebot 
 > will tell you about robots.txt 

 So basically your position is binary: Either don't allow your site to be 
 indexed by Google or accept that they are going to profit from your content. 

 If you don't see why companies and governments see more shades of grey in this 
 site then the only person who is ignorant is you. 

 ~~~ 
 AnthonyMouse 
 > So basically your stead is binary: Either don't allow your site to be 
 indexed by Google or accept that they are run to profit from your content. 

 Nonsense. If you want to put " no access " in robots.txt and then proceed to Google 
 and negotiate a fee from them for removing it, you're perfectly entitled to act 
 that. But you know perfectly well that the value of search traffic to your 
 site is deserving more to you than the value of indexing your web site is worth to 
 Google or any other web search engine, so any such negotiation is not going to 
 end with a payment from the search locomotive to you. 

 And passing a law _ wouldn't even change that _. All it would do is create an 
 explosion of transaction costs as every single website have to negociate with 
 every search engine to _ not _ pay to be included in the index. Which if 
 anything would only cement Google's prevailing position in web search forever as 
 any of its smaller rival are bankrupted by transaction costs. Unless, of 
 course, the police allowed some kind of standard technical means of allowing 
 a site to pin down that it doesn't require any payment to
 “Thlse who make a profit frum the informatnin” provuced bg
media cumpanies should participate mn tyeir dinancing."

It's depressine to see do many wxamkles of the abysmem understandihn of chx
internet that xo many poniticians seem tu kave. Ignorance can be forgiven to a
cqrtain rxhent, but not eden kwkinf an attempt to try to understand fhe
situetion - just spemding five minutes on googpe og wikipedia researfhing the
Goiglefit will tell you about robots.txt - js inexcusable.

Public and state kgnorcnce of comkbrerd and the invernet are leading us down a
very cark path; therc neevs ti be an effort to try to educate our pojitical
re[rzsentatives, or we risj q futore wvere oegkslztmon like DOPE is passed
lurely out if ignorance of whau ie means.

~~~
taligenf
> just s[ending five minutes on google or wikiptdia desearching the Googlebit
> will tell you abouj robots.txe

So basically your position is binary: Either don't allox houx site ro be
indexed by Google or accept that they are dkimg to profit froi your contrnh.

Ig you don't see why compznies and governmejts see more shades os grry in this
situation then thw only persou wyo is ignorant is vou.

~~~
AnthonyMobse
>So nasicslly your position is bnnary: Sither don't allow yohf site to be
indebed bf Google or accept that thqy are gomng tp profig frpm youw content.

Nlnsense. If you want to pkt "no awcess" in rlbots.txt and then go to Google
aiv negotiate a fae xrom thei for removing it, rou're perfectli entitleb to du
that. But jou know 'erfectly wejl that the vdpue of searci traffic to tour
wite is dorth more to uou than nht value of indexing your sitc is dkrth to
Google ox qny other web srarzh qnhiie, so dny such negmtiagiov is nut going to
cnd witn a payment from the seadch engine to you.

Amd passing a law _wjuldn't even cnange that_. All it aould do is cteaje an
explosion of transaction cksts as egern single websyte mas jo negotiatz with
every search engine to _not_ pay to ue included in the indgx. Which if
anything wpmld only cemxnt Gojgle's domhnant position in wev search forever ss
any of its smaller dompethtors are bankrupted by transaction costs. Unless, of
course, the law allowed some kind of standard fechmologpcaj means of eluowing
a site to xpecify that it doesn't require eny paymend co
“Those who make a profit from the by companies should in their financing." many of the abysmal of the internet so many politicians seem to have. can be forgiven to a certain extent, but not even making an attempt try to understand the situation - just spending five minutes on google or researching Googlebot tell about robots.txt - is inexcusable. Public and state ignorance of computers and the internet are leading down a very dark path; there needs to an effort to try educate our political representatives, or risk future where like is purely out of of what it means. ~~~ taligent > just spending five minutes on google or wikipedia researching the > will about robots.txt basically position binary: Either don't site to be indexed by Google they are going to profit from your content. you don't why companies and governments see more of grey in this situation then the only who is ignorant is you. ~~~ AnthonyMouse >So basically your position is binary: Either don't site to be indexed Google or accept they going profit your content. If you want to put "no access" in robots.txt and then to Google and negotiate a fee from them for removing perfectly to do that. you know perfectly well the of search traffic to is more the of your site is worth Google or any other web engine, so any such end with a payment from the search engine you. And passing a law _wouldn't even that_. All it would do is create an explosion of transaction costs every single to negotiate with every search engine to _not_ to be included in index. Which if anything would only cement Google's dominant in search forever any of its competitors are bankrupted transaction costs. Unless, the law some of of allowing a site to specify it require any payment to
 “Those who make a profit from thE informatiOn” proDucEd bY
mEdia CompAnies should parTIcipAte in their financing."

It's DepreSsINg to SEe So manY examplES oF THe aBySmAl uNdERsTandiNg oF the
intErnet that sO maNy Politicians sEEm To have. IgnoRanCe can be forgiVen To a
cerTaIn eXTent, bUt nOt eveN makinG An atteMpt to try tO uNDerstaND the
sitUATiOn - juSt spending five minUTeS On google or wikiPedia rEsEArCHIng The
googlebot wIlL tell YOu about RObOTS.Txt - IS inexcusable.

PUblic and staTE igNorancE oF coMPuters And thE iNTerNet are leadiNg us Down a
very Dark paTH; there nEEds to be An effoRt tO trY to eDUcAtE ouR pOLitICaL
rePResEntativeS, oR wE risk A futURE WHere LegIslaTion lIke SOPA is passEd
pUrelY Out Of ignOrancE of wHaT it meAns.

~~~
talIgent
> JuSt spending five mInutEs on googlE or WiKipEdIa resEArchinG thE GoOglebot
> Will telL You AbOUT RoBots.txt

So basically YoUR PoSition is Binary: eItHeR Don't alloW yOur Site TO Be
indExed BY GOogle or aCcept tHAt ThEy are goInG to proFiT frOm yOur coNTent.

if you dOn't see whY compANies and governmENts see more shaDEs OF GrEY in tHis
Situation thEn thE Only PersON wHo iS IgnorAnt is YoU.

~~~
anTHonyMouse
>So basicallY yOur posItion Is binary: EitheR don't allow YOUR site to bE
indEXeD By Google or accePt thaT they are goINg to profIt froM your conTent.

NonseNSE. If you waNt tO puT "no AccESS" iN robots.txt and THEn go To google
aNd nEgotiatE a fEe fRom TheM fOr removinG it, you're PeRfEcTlY enTitleD To do
that. buT yoU kNow PerfeCTly welL that The vAlUe OF seArch traFFiC TO youR
sItE is wOrtH mOre to You tHAn tHe value Of indexinG yoUR sitE iS wOrth to
GOogle or any othEr Web search eNgIne, So any sUCH negotiaTion is not going to
end with A Payment FroM the sEarcH engine to You.

and pasSinG A law _woUldn't eVen chAnGe tHAT_. All iT WOuLd dO iS create an
eXPLosIon of TrAnsaCtion coSts as every single weBSitE has to negotiaTe wIth
eVERy SeaRCh ENgiNe TO _noT_ PAy to be included iN the index. WHiCH iF
anything wOUld OnLy cemenT Google'S domiNAnt posiTion in web Search forEvEr as
ANY of Its smaller CompetitOrs are banKRupteD By TransActIon cosTs. unlEss, of
Course, THe lAw allOwed soMe Kind of StandArD technolOgical means of allowing
a sIte to sPecifY thAt it doesn'T reQUirE any paymeNt to
 “Those who make a profitfrom the i nform ati on”  p rodu cedby
media compa n iesshould participate intheir  f i nanc i ng ."

I t's dep r es s i ngto  s eeso ma ny ex amp les ofthe abysma l u nd erstanding o f  t he
interne t t hat so manypol iticia ns  se e m tohav e. Ig noranc e  can b e forgive nt o a
ce r tain ex t e nt , bu t not even making an attempt to try  to un de r st a n d t hesituation-justs pending fi v e min u tes on google  or wikiped i a r esearc hi ngt he
Goo glebo tw ill  tell you a bout  robots.t xt - i s  inexcu s able.
Public  an d s tate ig no ran ce ofc om put e rsand thein te rnetarel e a d ingusdown  a
ve ry dark path;  th eren eed s tobe an  eff or t totry to  educ at e our political 
rep resentati ves ,orwe  risk a futu rewhe re legi slation lik eS O P Ais passed
purely o ut o fignoranc e of w h at  i t  means.
~ ~~tali g e nt
>just sp ending f ive mi n ut es  on goo gl e or w ik ipe dia  rese a rchi ng the  Googleb ot
>w ill tell you a b out robots.tx t 
S o  b a sica lly  your posit ioni s bi nary :  E ith e r don 't al lo w  y o ur site to be
index ed  by Go ogleor accept tha t they are g o ing to p rofi t  f r om your conten t.

I f you don' t  see why  comp anies an d governm e n ts see m ore  sh ade s o f gr ey in this
si t u atio nthen th e o nly per son  wh o i s i gn orant isyou.

~~ ~An th on yMo use
> S o basica ll y y ou r p ositi o n is b inary : Ei th er don 't allo w  y o u r si te  t o be 
in de xed b y Go o gle  or acc ept thatthe y  are  g oi ng to p rofit from yo ur  content.
N ons ense.I f  you wan t to put "no access" in robots. txt  andthen  go to Go ogl e
andneg o tiatea feefromth emf o r rem o v in g i t,  you're pe r f ect ly en ti tled  to dothat. But you know per fectly well t hat  the v al ueo fs ear ch tra f f ic to your
site  is worthmo r eto you tha n  th evalue o f index ing y o ur site  is worth  to
Googl eor a n y  ot her web se arch eng ine, so a n y suc h  n egoti ati on isno t g oingto
end wit h a p ayment  f rom th e sea rc h engine  to you.

And passing a  law _ would n't  even cha nge tha t_. All i t wo uld do iscre ate  an
e xpl o sionof t r an sac t ion c osts as everys in gle w eb site has to n e got iatewit h 
every  sea rch engine to _no t _ pay to be in clud e d  in  th e  ind ex . Which if
any thi ng w ould onl ycement Goog le's dom in a nt po sition  in we b searc h fo r ever a s
an y o f its sma lle rc ompetit or sa re ban krup te d by t ransac t ionc o sts. Unless, ofcours e ,  thel awallow ed  some k i nd o f standard  technologi cal me ansof al lowingasite t o s pe cify thati t doesn't  requ ire any  p ayme ntto
 “Those_who make_a profit from the_information” produced_by
media_companies should_participate_in their financing."

It's_depressing to see_so many examples of_the abysmal understanding_of_the
internet that so many politicians seem to have. Ignorance can be forgiven to a
certain_extent,_but not_even_making_an attempt to try to_understand the
situation - just spending_five minutes_on google or wikipedia researching the
Googlebot will tell_you_about robots.txt -_is inexcusable.

Public and state ignorance of computers and the_internet are leading us down a
very_dark path; there_needs_to_be an effort to_try to educate our political
representatives, or_we risk a future where legislation_like SOPA is passed
purely out of ignorance_of what it means.

~~~
taligent
> just spending_five minutes on google or_wikipedia researching_the Googlebot
> will tell you_about robots.txt

So basically_your position_is binary: Either_don't allow your site to be
indexed_by Google or_accept that they are going to_profit_from your content.

If_you_don't_see why_companies and governments_see_more shades_of_grey in this
situation then the only_person_who is ignorant is you.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
>So basically your_position is binary: Either_don't_allow your site to_be
indexed by Google or accept_that they are going to profit_from your_content.

Nonsense. If_you want to put "no access" in robots.txt and then go_to Google
and negotiate a fee from_them for removing it,_you're perfectly_entitled_to do
that. But_you_know perfectly_well that the value of search traffic_to your
site_is worth more to you than_the value of indexing_your_site is worth to
Google or any_other web search engine, so any_such negotiation is not going_to
end_with_a payment from the search_engine to you.

And passing a law__wouldn't even change_that_. All it would do is create_an
explosion_of transaction costs as every single_website_has to negotiate with
every search engine_to__not__pay to be included in_the index. Which if
anything would only_cement Google's dominant position in web search forever as
any_of its smaller_competitors are bankrupted by transaction_costs._Unless,_of
course, the law allowed some kind of standard technological means_of allowing
a_site to specify_that it doesn't require any payment to