It is definitely worse. At leas a binary is constant, on your system, can be analyzed. Curl|sh can give you different responses than just curling. Far far worse
Your comment assumes the plugin is not working as they want it to. The way it is designed gets them the maximum amount of data. It does a great job if that is their goal.
This person's distinction between "library" and "framework" is frankly insane.
React, which just is functions to make DOM trees and render them is a framework? There is a reason there are hundreds of actual frameworks that exist to make structure about using these functions.
At this point, he should stop using any high level language! Java/python are just a big frameworks calling his bytecode, what magical frameworks!
Yes, that's the point of freedom. People can carry devices that do things. If they break the law, that's another question, but everyone should be allowed to have computers that communicate that they can control
But what action are you triggering that automatically follows invisible links? Especially those not meant to be followed with text saying not to follow them.
This is not banning you for following <h1><a>Today's Weather</a></h1>
If you are a robot that's so poorly coded that it is following links it clearly shouldn't that's are explicitly numerated as not to be followed, that's a problem. From an operator's perspective, how is this different than a case you described.
If a googler kicked off the googlebot manually from a session every morning, should they not respect robots.txt either?
Confused as to what you're asking for here. You want a robot acting out of spec, to not be treated as a robot acting out of spec, because you told it to?
How does this make you any different than the bad faith LLM actors they are trying to block?
Your own quote shows the source of the confusion. OC was asking how will google handle apps that have somebody else signing for them. Your quote talks about letting devs that go through a verification process still side load (though that has no real benefit at that point since google still holds control over you)
He effectively pretended to be dumb. And that included using the wrong "you're" and very simple dialects of English and mannerisms which he thought could potentially be seen as disparaging some groups.
I think it was so generic and so clearly a joke it would be insane to pretend it was making fun of a group that existed in real life.
For reference in the talk he also listed strongly typed languages as "weekly typed", static as dynamic, and had a MacBook on stage display a BSOD.
The talk was comedic genius and a fun tongue in cheek commentary on the industry in 8 minutes. But it has been deemed to dangerous to society to be allowed to exist.