Fediverse contains multitudes.

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."

https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/robots/intro

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.

Raphael Lullis

@stefan @BeAware

My issue with the general debate about consent is that it seems to try putting a square peg in a round hole.

At the micro/local/individual level, I absolutely understand that the sensible thing to do is to abide about the person/community is asking. But to do that on a global, "lower resolution" scale would mean that we would ignore any context and just apply rules uniformly.

Raphael Lullis

@stefan @BeAware

> If someone wants to be left alone, maybe they should?

Maybe, maybe not. Do they want to be left alone to spread out CSAM? Do they want to be left alone to plan a robbery? Do they want to be left alone to keep the power in an abusive relationship?

Stefan Bohacek

@raphael @BeAware Very good point, thank you for bringing that up!

This further highlights the complexity of this topic.

If a public official posts something offensive online and then later deletes it, do they have the right to demand any quotes and screenshots posted online to be removed? Or does the public deserve to know about their behavior? Maybe they really regret it and learned to do better.

Yes, this all depends on circumstances and so many details, but that just proves the point.