Why do you feel entitled to navigate to a website you neither own nor pay for via a method the owner expressly forbids?

Because I should be able to choose whatever user agent I want. The owner gets to "forbid" things on his computer, not on mine.

Why do you feel entitled to dictate what user agent I use, if it’s well-behaved?

Why do your opinions about what a "well-behaved" agent is override the wishes of a site's owner?

Site owners should not have full control over what users do. Their wishes do not apply past certain boundaries.

For a non-AI example I run into occasionally, any wish to stop time-shifting should not be relevant to what I choose to do as a media consumer.

There actually is a well defined demarcation point where the site owners wishes do apply. It's called... A demarc point! Everything that happens past this point is by definition entirely in the control of the admin. Which includes closing the door on whoever they wish. This is a technical reality, not something you can effect with opinions or wanting things more than other people want other things. It might seem contradictory but this is actually the main thing that makes the internet as free as it is.

When we're talking about ethics, I think we should give the owner more than that. If they don't want to be DDoSed we shouldn't say "too bad, the attackers are outside your network, your wishes don't apply, get good".

A request is a request. None of your business what I do with it after that.

If it's just impersonating me to help me better consume the content as if I were the one driving, then it's perfectly ethical, and not even related to a bot ban. Shades of gray and all...

This page is only viewable in Internet Explorer 5.5. Please switch to a supported browser.

Accessibility, saving time, personal preference. Any number of reasonable things that don’t put undue stress on the host