GAFAM Bots Are Not "Good Bots"
This month (or maybe last month) statCounter introduced this new 'feature' for graphing what it calls "Good Bots". Good, right?
What does it mean by "Good"? Big brands? Established (by "The Establishment") brands?
What if these "Good Bots" (e.g. Googlebot) are used for plagiarism, e.g. Google's slop (which it misleadingly calls "hey hi")?
What makes Pinterest or Amazon "Good"?
This is what's shown today:
For the record, it's good that we rolled out our own search last year. Google omits many of our pages, whereas even Putin's Yandex has those pages listed.
Worse yet, Google rips off our articles, treating them as mere "content" or as "Training Set" - i.e. something to plagiarise, poorly, while not only getting facts wrong but also failing to properly attribute the source/s.
There's nothing "Good" about Google. It's an evil, sinister, thieving company. Google also paid people who attacked the founder of GNU/Linux. 'Guilt money' like "Summer of Code" does not and will never compensate for this company's harms. Based on people involved in "Summer of Code", that budget (slush fund) has been misused as censorship money against projects. "Summer of Code" is not 'free money'; there are strings attached. Praising "Summer of Code" et al as altruistic acts is akin to calling Microsoft's GitHub a "service" or "free hosting". █