ricecake

People who play sports games don't even blink when you tell them you like strategy games in my experience.
Turns out people who enjoy pretending to manage a sports team don't think it's odd that someone might enjoy pretending to manage an army or empire. Or that people in general don't usually think most hobbies are unusual, if you talk about them like a sane person.

Except that with the website example it's not that they're ignoring the price or just walking out with the item. It's that the item was not labeled with a price, nor were they informed of the price. Then, rather than just walking out, they requested the item and it was delivered to them with no attempt to collect payment.

The key part of a website is that the user cannot take something. The site has to give it to them.
A more apt retail analogy might be you go to a website. You see a scooter you like, so you click "I want it!". The site then asks for your address and a few days later you get a scooter in the mail.
That's not theft, it's a free scooter. If the site accused you of theft because you didn't navigate to an unlinked page they didn't tell you about to find the prices, or try to figure out payment before requesting, you'd rightly be pretty miffed.

The shoplifting analogy doesn't work because it's not shoplifting if the vendor gives it to you knowingly and you never misrepresented the cost or tried to avoid paying. Additionally, taking someone's property without their permission is explicitly illegal, and we have a subcategory that explicitly spells out how retail fraud works and is illegal.

Under our current system the way to prevent someone from having your thing without paying or meeting some other criteria first is to collect payment or check that criteria before giving it to them.

To allow people to have things on their website freely available to humans but to prevent grabbing and using it for training will require a new law of some sort.

It really does matter if it's legally binding if you're talking about content licensing. That's the whole thing with a licensing agreement: it's a legal agreement.

The store analogy isn't quite right. Leaving a store with something you haven't purchased with the consent of the store is explicitly illegal.
With a website, it's more like if the "shoplifter" walked in, didn't request a price sheet, picked up what they wanted and went to the cashier who explicitly gave it to them without payment.

The crux of the issue is that the website is still providing the information even if the requester never agreed or was even presented with the terms.
If your site wants to make access to something conditional then it needs to actually enforce that restriction.

It's why the current AI training situation is unlikely to be resolved without laws to address it explicitly.

The thing is a robots.txt file doesn't work as licensing. There's no legal requirement to fetch the file, and no mechanism to consent or track consent.

This is putting up a sign that says everyone must pay, and then giving it to anyone who asks for free.

And what I was saying was adding to that, and including that without invoking the right to silence simply remaining silent can be used for self incrimination.
If you are not under arrest and not in custody, not answering questions by remaining silent can be used against you.

It's actually different. Remaining silent doesn't invoke the right to not incriminate yourself. Simply remaining silent means they can use your silence to incriminate you.

In the court case where they decided that a man didn't answer a question about a murder weapon. They used his silence and looking nervous as evidence for his guilt because he didn't say he intended to remain silent, and he remained silent before he was informed he had a right to do so.

There's also the supreme court ruling a bit ago that weakened the right. Changed it from something you can simply do to something you need to invoke.
Simply remaining silent does not invoke your right to remain silent, you must state that you wish to not speak. This applies before you're read your rights and arrested. So without ever being told your rights or that you can leave at any time, silently refusing to answer questions can be used as evidence against you. Look nervous when the police ask if shell casings found at a murder scene would match a gun you own? That can be used as evidence of guilt, along with your choice not to answer the question.

Coupled with police being able to lie to you more than a lot of people believe, it's possible to remain silent, say "I should probably have a lawyer for this" (note how that's not actually a request for legal counsel, just an observation), and for the police to imply that this has stopped the interrogation ("alright, I'll go do the paperwork. I'll send someone in to sit with you, can't leave people unsupervised").
A lot of people have difficulty not chatting with someone who's been presented to them as a neutral party, particularly if they think there's no harm to it.

Hey, if you want to run around with aerosolized poop particles stinking up your underwear like a grotesque feral hog out of a nightmarish Icelandic fairy tale, be my guest.

I would never advocate or incite for imminent lawless action. I would advocate for a change in public policy that included things currently held to be illegal.
As long as it makes a difference, the first amendment protects your right to advocate for changes to law and policy. You just can't tell people to right now go and break a specific law if you have reason to believe they might.

"People should shoot maga fascists dead in the street and hang them from lampposts" is protected because it's saying what society should do, not actively calling for people to go do this.

Also in the sense of literally trying to outlaw Christmas. The Bible doesn't describe a Christmas festival and celebration, so many Christians felt that it was improper and unchristian for a very long time.

In the US the only real war on Christmas was fought by Christians. The soviets, the CCP and briefly the French revolutionaries are the only times atheists have actually pushed against it. The Nazis were in favor of a pro-nazi version of Christmas that was more about the state.

Tit for tat is a good tactic, usually. There is something to be said for a chilling effect, or "intimidation", as a way to not just punish current behavior but to forestall future escalation. The only key is that it needs to be selective, and not permanent, and then extremely reversed when they switch to cooperation.

They preach hate, you destroy their landscaping and signage. They remove your memorial and you burn down their building.
Meanwhile you praise the episcopal church and very visibly support fundraisers by the united Methodist Church.

It only alienates the people who were already too far gone. Others will tut at the disproportionate response but agree to the middle ground of "it's self defense, so it's justified in principle".

Gotta shift the center somehow.

Could be as simple as not having data. It looks like they pulled it from listings for hotels and the source they used simply might not operate their.