Fediverse contains multitudes.

Laxystem (Masto/Glitch)

@raphael @stefan @BeAware while it is no contract, it doesn't mean we can't both go directions. The same way you shouldn't post some stuff on the open web, we should make it harder to capitalize over what we do post.

BeAware :fediverse:

@laxla @raphael @stefan sure, we SHOULD. However, so far, we haven't. Therefore the best course of action is to protect yourself and not expect something that doesn't exist yet.

Stefan Bohacek

@BeAware Fair enough. The different understanding of what "public" means and the lack of tools to better control this are definitely at the root of a lot of the disagreement.

Look at tech companies now arguing that they should be free to use anything posted online to train AI.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/big-tech-lobby-ai-use-1235916540/

That's a bold statement. And they are indeed getting away with it, for now.

Stefan Bohacek

@laxla @raphael @BeAware Yes, I wish I knew where to start on something like this: https://stefanbohacek.online/@stefan/112604352640135688

Raphael Lullis

@laxla @stefan @BeAware

Is it really effective? How hard is it for any unethical player to just ignore the social cues and do whatever they want with the data?

Tom Casavant

@stefan @BeAware I think there could be a legal exploration into this topic as well.

I know implied copyright has been discussed for years regarding publishing to the web or to an RSS feed. In the US I recall a case where a subscription news-syndication platform was pulling in the full text of RSS feeds and they were being sued under the idea that just because someone posts an RSS feed doesn't mean you can use the contents of that RSS feed for any purpose.

I'm not sure if the same would apply to ActivityPub but I don't know if I have an explanation for why it wouldn't

Laxystem (Masto/Glitch)

@BeAware @raphael @stefan yup. Intended meaning was, don't use that as a reason to prevent implementation of further protections.

Stefan Bohacek

@raphael @BeAware "do not post anything on the open web unless you are sure you don't mind it being available to any present or future malicious/adversarial entity"

Sure, that is a solid advice for now. But we do have to work towards improving this, and definitely not dismiss people who want things to change.

Laxystem (Masto/Glitch)

@raphael @stefan @BeAware robots.txt isn't a social cue. It is a legal one.

Laxystem (Masto/Glitch)

@stefan @raphael @BeAware I'd say W3C privacy committee recommendations.

Stefan Bohacek

@laxla @raphael @BeAware I looked into this a bit, and from what I've seen robots.txt is not at all legally binding.

Even Google doesn't really respect robots.txt.

"While Google won't crawl or index the content blocked by a robots.txt file, we might still find and index a disallowed URL if it is linked from other places on the web."

Robots.txt Introduction and Guide | Google Search Central | Documentation | Google for Developers

Robots.txt is used to manage crawler traffic. Explore this robots.txt introduction guide to learn what robot.txt files are and how to use them.

Google for Developers (developers.google.com)

Laxystem (Masto/Glitch)

@stefan @raphael @BeAware three things:

Unenforced ≠ Legal
America isn't an example because it's basically the hypercapitalistic layer of hell
It isn't a legal contract, it is a legal cue. "You do not have consent to access this website, and if you index it/train AI on it for profits, we'll sue you"

Laxystem (Masto/Glitch)

@stefan @raphael @BeAware Google is just big enough to trust it'll have better lawyers than whoever's trynna sue them.

Laxystem (Masto/Glitch)

@stefan @raphael @BeAware (the USDoJ be like: challenge accepted)

Raphael Lullis

@stefan @BeAware

Be careful what you wish for.

The old "information wants to be free" adage is not just a quip for pirates to justify download of copyrighted material . It's also a good reminder that any technology that is created to limit transparency *will be subverted in favor of ruling elite*.

I for one *do not* want an internet where I can not browse freely. "Consent-based mechanisms" work at personal, local level, not at a global one.

Stefan Bohacek

@raphael @BeAware This reminds me of the Hacker News policy (and other sites implementing a variation of it, like Reddit, and Stack Overflow), where you can't easily delete your own post, as it is "too valuable to the community".

Sure, that makes sense. As a developer, I am thankful when someone asks about a problem I am myself dealing with and someone else figured out the answer to.

Stefan Bohacek

@raphael @BeAware And I've dealt with this myself with https://botwiki.org, which lists other people's projects. I've received a few emails over the years from people who no longer wanted to have their work included, and in all cases, except one, it was enough to remove any association with the author.

But in that one case where the person reaching out preferred to have their project removed completely, I just complied.

Stefan Bohacek

@raphael @BeAware And I know others would react definitely, maybe get into a fight over who owns what and what the greater good is, etc. But I don't know. If someone wants to be left alone, maybe they should? My point here is that I don't think there is an easy rule to follow that works in all situations. But it is worth understanding where people are coming from when all they want is basic privacy and respect.

Raphael Lullis

@laxla @stefan @BeAware

Sue them based on what? Even big Corporations like The NYT are failing to get a strong case for copyright violation here.

Yeah, it would be nice if it was that easy, but in the end it's wishful thinking.

The only way to really protect data is by "deny-by-default" and only exchange information with parties who have explicitly signed something legally binding about how the information is meant to be used.

Laxystem (Masto/Glitch)

@raphael @stefan @BeAware Protection ≠ Legality. It's illegal to schoolshoot, doesn't mean American schools are protected from school shooters (as a non-american, I'm obligated to make America sound like the dystopia it is even when unrelated to the subject, although in this case, it is).

On the more serious note, we need to make it more and more illegal to collect our data, and at the same time make it harder and harder to do so in the first place.

Sue on the basis of what? Collecting and using data for profit without consent. Or rather, against one's explicit refusal. On the same basis of anti-recording laws. Yes, this data is available to the public. But, it doesn't mean you have the right to record it.

Fediverse platforms recording every single post they encounter instead of exclusively ones gained from follow relationships is incredibly risky in the first place, and something I'm very against.