Weird take. The store doesn't owe your personal shippers anything.

That's fair, but if there's enough of supply and demand for this to get traction (and online shopping is bug, and autonomous agents are sort of trending), this conflict of interest paired with a no-compromise "we don't own you anything" attitude is bound to escalate in an arms race. And YMMV but I don't like where that race may possibly end.

If store businesses at least partially relies on obscurity of information that can be solved through automated means (e.g. storefronts tend to push visitors towards products they don't want, and buyer agents are fighting that and looking for something buyers instructed them) just playing this cat and mouse game of blocking agents, finding workarounds, and repeating the cycle is only creating perverse technological contraptions that neither party is really interested in - but both are circumstantially forced to invest into.

Surely they owe them money for the goods and service, no? I thought that's how stores worked.

Context friend. This article and entire comments sections is about questionable web page access. Context.

You're replying in a store metaphor thread though. Context matters.

Then they can't complain if they're barred entry.

http is neutral. it's up to the client to ignore robots.txt

You can block IP's at the host level but there's pretty easy ways around that with proxy networks.

> http is neutral.

Who misled you with that statement?

Http doesnt have emotions or thought last time I checked.

It seems that a 403 makes you sad though.

iproyal.com makes me smile again

And Cloudflare makes you cry. See, it's not neutral. Glad you learned something today. The more one learns everyday, the less stupid you become.

IETF?

> Who distorted that simple idea into the garbage websites we have now?

Corporate America. Where clean code goes to die.