Feckin Bots

Sorry for any connectivity issues the past couple days, it appears a new search engine found our little corner of the web and decided to request 6 pages a second forever.

But like any good jalopy pilot, I executed a remarkable feet feat of duct tape and we should be smooth sailing now. Or at least status-quo sailing.

Carry on.

[EDIT: duct taped a word]

Glad here this is sorted out.

What is the ontological status of bots?

You’re a hero.

Ah… is that what was slowing the site down, constantly logging me out of ILP, and throwing me off of the site at a moment’s notice?

What kind of Bot was that @ Carleas?

Mike Pence is a bot.

I believe the bot belongs to Huawei, who I understand to be building a new search engine to compete with/replace Google in China, where Google is banned. As part of that, I assume they are trying to get everything about every website at speed, and turned that deluge onto ILP last week. Sadly, ILP will probably not be indexed in that search engine as a result.

The number of requests they were making doesn’t seem reasonable: I set up the firewall rule on Friday and on Saturday it blocked 130k requests from the same bot, which is more than one per second, all day every day (they’ve mostly stopped now that they just get a 503 error). The fact that the bot was named in the user agent string and easily identifiable by a firewall rule suggests they weren’t trying to do anything too nefarious, though it did seem to be ignoring the robots.txt file (which tells good bots where they can and can’t go; intended for reducing load and not adding junk to search indices rather than security). It also changed IPs for every request, so the normal IP-based rules to weren’t catching it, and even Cloudflare must have considered it benign because they didn’t register anything amiss.

But yeah, it fucked us up something bad for a while. Sorry if it caused you lost posts or other frustrations, it definitely caused me some frustration – enough that I actually did something about it.

I didn’t know that Tik Tok was Chinese, until I saw this video on Gram last week… now it all makes sense. It has been said that Google, et others, did the same without the User’s permission, but yet that’s ok?


cnet.com/news/tiktok-accuse … -to-china/ An interesting read…

TikTok, known for its quirky 15-second videos, has been illegally and secretly harvesting vast amounts of personally identifiable user data and sending it to China, according to a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in California federal court last week.

The lawsuit also accuses the company and its Chinese parent company ByteDance of taking user content such as draft videos without their consent and having “ambiguous” privacy policies. It raises concerns that data gathered by TikTok could be used to identify, profile and track users in the US. The company is benefiting from this alleged activity because it uses this data to sell targeted ads, the lawsuit alleges.

“TikTok’s lighthearted fun comes at a heavy cost,” according to the lawsuit, which was filed on Friday.

Please permaban me, thank you.

Hmm, is this for real? And, if so, is it about anything in particular? Or, instead, as will come upon most of us here from time time, has the whole feckin experience become just unbearable?

Too many sock-puppets, ergo lies/liars = lack of integrity… I can’t stomach that anymore.
Worse than any posting bot.

Admittedly, this is one of the advantages I have here in being “fractured and fragmented”. I am only able to take the points made by others here in regard to the points that I make so seriously. And, in part, because I am only able to take the points that I make myself so seriously.

I think mostly about what I do “here and now” in regard to the one thing that interest me above all else “philosophically”: how ought one to live given the extent to which how one does choose to live is able to be intertwined with the fate of “I” on the other side.

On the other hand, I’m still able to recognize how both moral objectivists and moral nihilists out in the “real world” can and do bring into existence very, very real pain and suffering endured by millions around the globe.

All I can do then is to suggest that “moderation, negotiation and compromise” may well be the “best of all possible worlds” in regard to confronting conflicting goods out in a world embedded in the brute facticity of political economy.


You suggest that I do what? lol

Not to worry. Lots of people here are in denial.

And not all of them have a “condition”. :wink:

K: If you are really leaving, then leave with guns blazing… Name names…
tell it like it is… and don’t hold back… leave it all out there…


I believe she changed her mind, but I second this suggestion, whether staying or leaving.

I’m not in denial… you’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix… like oil on water, or a really bad DJ. :-k I think I’ll put that in my Sig… I like it. :slight_smile:

Condition or not… posting in bad faith and spite, by always using conjecture, is simply a (dull and boring) fallacious argument, that Someone likes to use, to try to gain ground and traction by that method. Others here… not so much.

Lol, that’s funny Peter, but it’s not my style.

I did indeed KP… and you’re nawty, in agreeing for me to divulge all, but while still here.
That time when… :-k oh no, I can’t possibly divulge…


I simply had a ](*,) moment, from one or two threads, is all… bots, seeming more preferable to engage with, at that point… hence my post, in this thread.

To paraphrase myself, “You’ll need a context, of course.”

That way you can note more specifically when, as the exchange unfolds, posters are acting in bad faith…or using fallacious arguments. And the posters can then defend themselves in turn.

And, over and again, all posters will refer back to that particular set of circumstances in order to illustrate and to bolster any accusations that they make.

I’ll start the thread if you’d like. In the philosophy forum of course.

I take issue, more with sock-puppets, than with anything else… that’s posting in bad faith, to me.

…only as long as you don’t use the phrase “…interactions that revolve around conflicting goods in which we connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then”, or any variation or derivative there-of… otherwise, sure.