Disagreeing with me doesn't mean my criticism is attacking a strawman. That's not what the term means. The websites are, in fact, permitting you to view them, while insisting you not learn anything from the content.

That's not fundamentally different from when employers "explicitly refuse" you learning from your job with them to use at the next one. Sure, they certainly want that, but the law doesn't recognize it as a valid constraint (except for e.g. trade secrets and proprietary knowledge).

My argument was that explicitly agreeing not to collect someone's data for AI training, then collecting data for AI training, is lying. You argued that collecting data without explicit agreement is, actually, not lying. Arguing with an easy claim no one made is the definition of a straw-man response.

Look, just have courtesy for others and don't argue in bad faith, the snark included. This community came up with the HN guidelines, let's try to follow them more. That's all I wanted to say. All the best.