Will their users appreciate that they disregard the intent of the authors of what they index?
I mean, "allow" or "regulate" don't _really_ apply here - there was never any enforcement regime around robots.txt, just a convention based on the general expectation that you don't claim ownership of whatever passes your line of sight.
What if I want what I publish to be known only by word of mouth?
What if I consider (some or any of) my ideas to be un-indexable, not directly suitable to representation in any hierarchy other than those I may set them in?
Yes, sorry, it was a rhetorical question in response to previous.
Taking either step you suggest (along with robots.txt or eqiv.), it would seem fair to expect that Brave, Bing, whomever, would not feel it their neutral/natural domain to include in a public index.
> Also looks like the article was originally published here:
Actually there's editor's note in the end linking to the original RealClearPolitics article. Also the article I submitted says that it was first there,
but less visibly and without link.
There seems to be no way to change the url in retrospect.
It's not really hyperbolic at all. Secrecy is now only preserved if the people handling the votes choose to preserve it. That's a big deal. Even if today they choose to preserve your ballot's secrecy, there is nothing now stopping them from violating that (and the law) in the future. It's important to wonder too how people will react -- do people now act as though they have no secrecy in their ballot?
I mean, "allow" or "regulate" don't _really_ apply here - there was never any enforcement regime around robots.txt, just a convention based on the general expectation that you don't claim ownership of whatever passes your line of sight.