This is a double standard plain and simple, and a very dangerous one at that.
My point was that when you call something a double standard, you're arguing two things of equal value have been judged differently under the same standard. But by acknowledging they've been judged differently, you're acknowledging that there is a judgement, a standard, that applies the same to both, and produces the results you object to. What you really object to is the fairness of the qualities checked by the standard.
Since the outcome of calling things that, vs calling them a double standard is the same, I think most people already know and have no trouble with this. My protests were worthless.
It could gain value if there were certain whitelisted judgable aspects (like expected value), and judgements that aren't based on things from the whitelist are considered outside the scope of a standard. Then, calling the standard unfair and calling it a double standard would have a different meaning (if only in some contrived way, since any aspect is just an argument away from the whitelist)
If a stranger enters my house without my permission, that's trespassing. But there's nothing unfair about letting in someone who I invite over.
1. Google can come in
2. Other Americans can't come in
3. Chinese people can come in (or anywhere else where US laws don't apply)
It might not be unfair, but it is certainly pointless and arbitrary.
For websites, it's not fair to have different rules for Google than others. What would be fair is some kind of rule about how often visitors can visit, how much they're allowed to download, etc.
Personally, though, I think all this is total BS. Sites are open to the public, but they also serve the whims of their owners. If the site wants to prevent access to people from a certain IP range, that should be their right. If they don't want any scrapers, that should be their right too, or if they want to allow Google and not anyone else, that should also be their right. What isn't right is that they can use the government to enforce these arbitrary rules. If they want to block my scraper, that's fine, if they can do it on their end technologically. If they want to block my IP, they can do that too. But suing me or having the cops come to my door because they're too incompetent or lazy to do these things technologically is unacceptable. The role of government is not to enforce arbitrary policies made up by business owners.
Even normal trespassing laws are way too overreaching (see how it is handled in the UK for a saner example) but now you have the amazing possibility of remote trespassing.
The fun part is that it's just a matter of someone hiding something that says you cannot access the site in a place that you have to access the site in order to read -- the ToS. Suing people over this is idiotic.
The real problem is the involvement of Govt, and this kind of absurdity regarding ToS, EULAs and so on, is something that has been going on for decades. If you have the money you can make Govt your personal watch dogs.
And all smart websites should include a ToS that says you are not allowed to access their data, so they can sue for trespassing anyone that they don't like selectively.
The far reaching of government into this, and also the pirating stuff (which I do not condone but think that arresting people for that is waay too much) is what makes me want for the system to collapse under it's own weight. Like some website suing members of congress for visiting it while violating the ToS in this case.
I also secretly wanted Oracle to win vs Google so that cloning an API was piracy and that would extend to being a crime to purchase pirated goods which would make all clean room reverse engineering a criminal activity. That would lead to anyone that uses a PC without an authentic IBM BIOS (look up Phoenix BIOS) to be arrested, in theory, so even the US president would have to fall into that. It would have been a glorious shitstorm if Oracle won and IBM took that precedent to it's logical implications, the computer world would have failed, and the law would either be made even more arbitrary or be fixed, but at least it would be shown how idiotic the state of affairs was.
your next argument may very well be a very racist one with the very same excuse you used above.