I can't state how much I dislike companies or lawyers who doggedly pursue such selfish policies.
> This is an unpersuasive argument because it ignores all the computer users who are not "members".
It's not just unpersuasive, it's disingenuous. LinkedIn wants to reap the benefits of having a public website while excluding competitors from their definition of "public".
If LinkedIn wants a membership-only website, they can privatize it like Facebook.
As a data scientist, I won't use LinkedIn after seeing them pursue this. They need to learn what public and private mean, and that it isn't the job of courts to punish people or businesses for accessing publicly available information. LinkedIn can set up its own boundaries as many other services already do.
> This is an unpersuasive argument because it ignores all the computer users who are not "members".
It's not just unpersuasive, it's disingenuous. LinkedIn wants to reap the benefits of having a public website while excluding competitors from their definition of "public".
If LinkedIn wants a membership-only website, they can privatize it like Facebook.
As a data scientist, I won't use LinkedIn after seeing them pursue this. They need to learn what public and private mean, and that it isn't the job of courts to punish people or businesses for accessing publicly available information. LinkedIn can set up its own boundaries as many other services already do.