2025-05-25 UTC
balintm and glacier joined the channel
# 02:16 [social] There is a “rel=me” is there a “rel=notme”?
# 02:16 [social] I’m wanting to mark my former Twitter accounts as “not me” should somebody takeover the closed accounts.
[jgarber] joined the channel
# 02:27 [jgarber] Oooh, interesting. “nofollow” is in the ballpark even if it’s not how the value tends to be used:
# 02:27 [jgarber] “Indicates that the context’s original author or publisher does not endorse the link target.”
# 02:28 [jgarber] But in that usage (if it’s even sensible), there’d have to be some clarifying text beyond “just” slapping `rel=“nofollow”` on some links.
# 02:35 [social] Hello [jgarber]
# 02:35 [social] I’ve always used `rel="nofollow"` for scrapers and bots, going back to when it was first used in 2006 or so.
# 02:35 [social] I”ve not thought about in the context of “this is not me”.
# 02:44 [jgarber] Yeah, concur. I was surprised to read the IANA definition.
# 02:44 [tantek] It's a good reason to tombstone accounts if possible (make them private then maybe post a tickle message once a year?)
# 02:45 [tantek] "nofollow" is kinda junk. It started out as one thing and has now been abused into something else
barnaby, Guest6, balintm, [schmarty], gRegor, jeremycherfas and [qubyte] joined the channel
gRegor joined the channel
[KevinMarks] joined the channel
# 22:35 [tantek] ok that should be good enough for now and I need to go
barnaby and plantroon joined the channel