Some people are defending Perplexity after Cloudflare ‘named and shamed’ it

When Cloudflare accused the search engine of artificial intelligence at the confusion of its surreptitious web sites on Monday, while ignoring the location’s specific methods to prevent it, this was not a clear case of Amnesty International’s Web.

Many people came to defend confused. They argued that confusion in reaching sites that limit the desires of the site owner, although they are controversial, is acceptable. This is a controversy that will definitely grow with the dumping of artificial intelligence agents online: Should the agent be treated on a website on behalf of his user like a robot? Or like a person submits the same request?

Cloudflare is famous for providing fluid cupping services and other web safety services for millions of web sites. Basically, the Cloudflare test case included preparing a new web site with a new field that has never crawled by any robot, setting up the Robots.txt file that specifically prevented the known robots from AI, then requesting confusion about the site content. The confusion answered the question.

Cloudflare researchers found that the artificial intelligence search engine uses a “general browser aimed at impersonating Google Chrome on MacOS” when the same web creeping was banned. The CEO of Cloudflare Matthew Princess has published the search for X, and writes, “It is assumed that some artificial intelligence companies” are supposed to be a “good reputation” that behaves like North Korean infiltrators. Time to name, shame, and prohibit them. “

But many people did not agree to the prince’s evaluation that this was actually bad behavior. Those who defend confusion in sites like X and Hacker News indicated that what it seems that the Cloudflare was documenting it is Amnesty International to reach a specific public website when he asked the user about this specific site.

“If you are asking a human site on a website, I must show the content,” a person wrote in Hacker News, adding: “Why will access the website on my behalf in a different legal category such as my Firefox web browser?”

A spokesman for the confusion by Techcrunch that the robots were the company and called the Cloudflare Blog Publication of the stadium sales for Cloudflare. Then on Tuesday, the confusion published a blog in its defense (and attacking Cloudflare in general), claiming that the behavior was from a third -party service that sometimes used it.

But the essence of Perplexity posted a similar attractiveness as the defenders did online.

The publication said: “The difference between the automatic crawl and the briefing the user is not just a technician-it is about who can access information on the open web.” “This controversy reveals that Cloudflare systems are mainly sufficient to distinguish between legal artificial intelligence assistants and actual threats.”

Peoplexity accusations are not completely fair, too. One of the arguments used by Prince and Cloudflare to summon Perplexity is that Openai does not act in the same way.

“Openai is an example of a leading AI company that follows best practices. They respect Robots.txt and do not try to evade either Robots.txt or a network level. Chatgpt agent records HTTP requests using the newly proposed BOT authentication.”

Web BOT ATH is a supportive standard from Cloudflare that is developed by the Internet Engineering Square that hopes to create an encryption method to determine AI Agent requests.

The discussion comes at a time when the BOT activity is restored. As Teccrunch previously mentioned, the robots that seek to scrape the huge amounts of content to train artificial intelligence models threatening, especially for smaller sites.

For the first time in the history of the Internet, the BOT activity is currently over the Internet, as the AI traffic represents more than 50 %, according to the Bad Bot’s report issued last month. Most of this activity comes from llms. But the report also found that harmful robots now make up 37 % of all online traffic. This is the activity that includes everything from constant scraping to unauthorized entry attempts.

Even LLMS, I generally accepted that the websites can prevent most BOT activity due to the number of times that were harmful using Captchas and other services (such as Cloudflare). Web sites also had a clear incentive to work with specific good representatives, such as Googlebot, and direct it to what was not indexed by Robots.txt. Google indexed the Internet, which sent traffic to the sites.

Now, LLMS takes an increasing amount of traffic. Gartner predicts that the search engine volume will decrease by 25 % by 2026. Humans now tend to click on LLMS website links at the most valuable point for the website, which is when they are ready to perform a transaction.

But if humans adopt agents where the technology industry expects that they will – arrange our travel, reserve our dinner reservations, and marke – will web sites hurt their commercial interests by preventing them? The discussion of X has completely acquired the dilemma:

“I want a confusion to visit any general content on my behalf when I give him a request/task!” One person wrote in response to Cloudflare calling the confusion outside.

“What if the site owners do not want it? They just want you? [to] Visit the house directly, see their purposes, “another argue, noting that the owner of the site who created the content wants traffic and possible advertising revenues, and not to allow confusion to take it.

“This is why I cannot see” the agent browsing “really works – a much more difficult problem than people think. Most owners of the sites will prohibit.”