> But in recent months The New York Times began blocking the Archive from crawling its website, using technical measures that go beyond the web’s traditional robots.txt rules. That risks cutting off a record that historians and journalists have relied on for decades. Other newspapers, including The Guardian, seem to be following suit.

I'm a bit surprised I never read about this till now, though while disappointing it is unfortunately not surprising.

> The Times says the move is driven by concerns about AI companies scraping news content. Publishers seek control over how their work is used, and several—including the Times—are now suing AI companies over whether training models on copyrighted material violates the law. There’s a strong case that such training is fair use.

I suspect part of it might be these corps not wanting people to skip a paywall (whether or not someone would pay even if they had no access is a different story). But this argument makes no sense for the Guardian.

I went to Guardian's website to cross check their motto (getting confused with WaPo's motto) and got served this (hilarious? sad?) banner. As if blocking cross website tracking is somehow bad.

> Rejection hurts … You’ve chosen to reject third-party cookies while browsing our site. Not being able to use third party cookies means we make less from selling adverts to fund our journalism.

We believe that access to trustworthy, factual information is in the public good, which is why we keep our website open to all, without a paywall.

If you don’t want to receive personalised ads but would still like to help the Guardian produce great journalism 24/7, please support us today. It only takes a minute. Thank you.