555
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is fine. I support archiving the Internet.

It kinda drives me crazy how normalized anti-scraping rhetoric is. There is nothing wrong with (rate limited) scraping

The only bots we need to worry about are the ones that POST, not the ones that GET

[-] purrtastic@lemmy.nz 47 points 1 year ago

It’s not fine. They are not archiving the internet.

I had to ban their user agent after very aggressive scraping that would have taken down our servers. Fuck this shitty behaviour.

[-] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Isn't there a way to limit requests so that traffic isn't bringing down your servers

[-] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 45 points 1 year ago

I had to block ByteSpider at work because it can't even parse HTML correctly and just hammers the same page and accounts to sometimes 80% of the traffic hitting a customer's site and taking it down.

The big problem with AI scrapers is unlike Google and traditional search engines, they just scrape so aggressively. Even if it's all GETs, they hit years old content that's not cached and use up the majority of the CPU time on the web servers.

Scraping is okay, using up a whole 8 vCPU instance for days to feed AI models is not. They even actively use dozens of IPs to bypass the rate limits too, so theyre basically DDoS'ing whoever they scrape with no fucks given. I've been woken up by the pager way too often due to ByteSpider.

My next step is rewriting all the content with GPT-2 and serving it to bots so their models collapse.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 11 points 1 year ago

I think a common nginx config is to just redirect malicious bots to some well-cached terrabyte file. I think hetzner hosts one iirc

[-] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 16 points 1 year ago
[-] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

wouldn't it be trivial to defend against that with a hash check if the size matches?

though I guess it's possible to create your own that differs

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago

Bytedance ain’t looking to build an archival tool. This is to train gen AI models.

[-] zod000@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago

Bullshit. This bot doesn't identify itself as a bot and doesn't rate limit itself to anything that would be an appropriate amount. We were seeing more traffic from this thing that all other crawlers combined.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not rate limiting is bad. Hate them because of that, not because they're a bot.

Some bots are nice

[-] Zangoose@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Even if they were rate limiting they're still just using the bot to train an AI. If it's from a company there's a 99% chance the bot is bad. I'm leaving 1% for whatever the Internet Archive (are they even a company tho?) is doing.

[-] zod000@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

I don't hate all bots, I hate this bot specifically because:

  • they intentionally hide that they are a bot to evade our, and everyone else's, methods of restricting which bots we allow and how much activity we allow.
  • they do not respect the robots.txt
  • the already mentioned lack of rate limiting
[-] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

this is neither archiving, nor ratelimited, if the AI training purpose and the 25 times faster scraping than a large company did not make it obvious

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

GET requests can still overload a system.

[-] tempest@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

The type of request is not relevant. It's the cost of the request that's an issue. We have long ago stopped serving html documents that are static and can be cached. Tons of requests can trigger complex searches or computations which are expensive server side. This type of behavior basically ruins the internet and pushes everything into closed gardens and behind logins.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

Sounds like you need to fire your sysadmin

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It has nothing to do with a sysadmin. It's impossible for a given request to require zero processing power. Therefore there will always be an upper limit to how many get requests can be handled, even if it's a small amount of processing power per request.

For a business it's probably not a big deal, but if it's a self hosted site it quickly can become a problem.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

Caches can be configured locally to use near-zero processing power. Or moved to the last mile to use zero processing power (by your hardware)

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Near zero isn't zero though. And not everyone is using caching.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

Right, thats why I said you should fire your sysadmin if they aren't caching or can't manage to get the cache down to zero load for static content served to simple GET requests

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Not every GET request is simple enough to cache, and not everyone is running something big enough to need a sysadmin.

this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
555 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

76072 readers
2696 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS