What would help\u2014as University of Wisconsin law professor Benjamin Sobel told Nieman Lab\u2014would be if Meta added specific language to the policy where the company agrees to respect scraping instructions in robots.txt files. Since complying with robots.txt is voluntary, Meta could possibly rely on the legally enforceable TOS omitting mentions of robots.txt to scrape sites that attempt to block scraping via robots.txt, experts suggested.<\/p>\n
When it comes to robots.txt, \u201cyou can still express the preference, and unless it\u2019s a legally enforceable preference, it can still be ignored all the same,\u201d Sobel said.<\/p>\n
Meta backlash is global<\/p>\n
Criticism goes beyond Nieman Lab\u2019s reporting, as news groups globally urge regulators to intervene and block Meta\u2019s controversial terms from kicking in.<\/p>\n
A chief executive for the United Kingdom News Media Association, Theo Bamber, accused Meta of a \u201cshameless land grab\u201d relying on the \u201cworst kind of arrogant tech platform bullying.\u201d Bamber urged UK regulators to \u201cstand up for British creators and the business community\u201d by \u201cpreventing Meta from setting this dreadful precedent.\u201d<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, the European Publishers Council has already asked<\/a> the European Commission to intervene. \u201cPublishers must be able to decide whether and how their journalism is used, and negotiate fair payment,\u201d the group\u2019s executive director, Angela Mills Wad, said. \u201cBurying such far-reaching claims in platform terms is no substitute for consent.\u201d<\/p>\n