> under spirit of net neutrality you either serve your site to everyone equally(the public facing part) or to no one

Huh? Net neutrality isn't about the server or client... it's about the network operator in between them.

I suspect Xelbair is making a more expensive definition of net neutrality, taking as a basis the one that says it's about network operators only.

I think you wanted to say more expansive? But it's definitely also more expensive. :D

Yes, I meant expansive. Oops.

That was the case, hence the reference to the "spirit" of net neutrality.

Public facing internet sites, in my opinion, should be treated in same way as public space - anyone should be free to read, and write down in their notepad whatever is there, in the same way as anyone else.

Scraping public facing website in my opinion is huge waste of resources. It would be cheaper(in total) to build an API that can serve the data from it, than to build a good scraper.

Net neutrality is more about nondiscrimination in routing content from a provider to a user, rather than forcing content providers to serve everyone regardless of conduct. It's entirely reasonable for a site to discriminate who they wish to allow to access their data (whether technically their copyright or data they caretake).

That being said, if you provide data to the public, you don't get to invoke the CFAA to plug the holes your content discrimination code doesn't fill.

Why should you be forced to serve content to people who won't look at your ads?

Like disabled users with screen-readers?

I suppose we can give them a pass if they solve a bunch of captchas.

Anyone is free to put up a paywall and deny access to people who don't pay.

But LinkedIn is apparently happy to let Googlebot and bingbot scrape public profiles. If they want to do that, they can't argue that their policy is to block bots who don't click on ads. Discriminating Googlebot from other visitors is probably a violation of Google policies, too. They can't have their cake and eat it at the same time.