Likewise, I may prevent certain user-agents to visit my site. If you - say, an AI megacorp - are intentionally spoofing the user-agent to appear as a user, you are also violating consent.
Fundamentally it's not true that the moment I publish something on the internet, I lose control of who can consume my intellectual property. Licensing, for example, is a way we regulate the way that code or prose can be consumed even if public.
Also expressing my consent is not in any way a way to control others, is a way to control my ideas, my writing, my [whatever] and people are not automatically entitled to it because it's published on the internet.
So overall I understand your position, but I so much disagree with it.
Licensing is much much more limited than you seem to be thinking of it. For instance, you said explicitly you want a way to control your ideas. The only thing this can mean is a way to control who gets to use your ideas, or what they get to use them for. So if I express a political idea in a novel way or tell a funny joke or something I should be able to dictate who gets to repeat it, or in this case with LLMs who gets to summarise and describe it.
This kind of control is antithetical to the spirit of the internet and would be frankly evil if people were actually able to assert it. Luckily in most cases it's impossible, nobody can actually stop me from describing a movie to my friends or from reposting a meme. Just copying and reposting what you wrote verbatim is something we can probably agree is wrong, but that isn't what's up for questioning here. The idea I was actually replying to in the first place was that you can decide somebody can't read your ideas - even if they're public - just because you don't like them or you don't like what they will do with them. It is hard to think of a more egregious kind of 1984-style censorship, really.
There is a place for regulation of LLM companies, they are doing a lot of harm that I wish governments would effectively rein in. It would not be hard if the political will existed. But this idea of saying I should be able to "control my ideas" is way, way worse.
Websites are not "public resources"; site operators just mostly choose to allow the general public to access them. There's no legal requirement that they do so.
If you want anti-discrimination laws that apply to businesses to also cover bots, that is well outside of current law. A site operator can absolutely morally and legally decide they do not allow non-human visitors, just like a store can prohibit pets.
