I see talk here and there about how any company or individual can easily use anything we post on Lemmy however they want. This could include AI training, behavior analysis, or user profiling. With the recent news of Reddit data being sold and licensed for AI training, I thought this would be a great time to preemptively discuss how we feel about this topic and brainstorm ways to discourage unwanted use of the content we post.
I’ve seen some users add a license to the end of each of their comments. One idea might be this: Add a feature to Lemmy where each user can choose a content license that applies to everything they post. For example, one user might choose to no rights for their content (like CC0) because they don’t care how their data is used. Another user might not want companies profiting off their posts, so they’d choose a more restrictive license.
I’m eager to here everyone’s thoughts on the whole topic, so to kick things off:
- Do you care how your public data and posted content is used? Why or why not?
- What do you think of choosing a content license for your Lemmy account? Does this contradict the FOSS model?
- Should Lemmy have features to protect user data/content in this way, or should that be left up to the user to figure out on their own?
Data is becoming an increasingly valuable commodity in the digital world. Hopefully these big-picture conversations can help us see what we value as a community and be more prepared for the future.
cloning data in that way isn’t legally different than what The Wayback Machine does for other websites, it doesn’t mean a company can just ignore the legal license of the content just because they can get a copy of it
if the only concern was getting a copy of the data, then Reddit wouldn’t be able to sell access to the data for $75mil or whatever, the AI company would just scrape the pages or pay the API fees directly, and then they could even store the data and serve it to other people as a mirror and make some money off of the content with ads too!
same thing with licenses on Git repos, you can’t just clone it and do whatever you want with it, there are laws
The problem is that does another server have to listen to the license. You’re on programming.dev. Say they obey your license that you put there. Well, say my server explicitely says “Do not send me things if you want it licensed. By sending me your data you waive all rights to your data and waive all licenses”. I can put this in my legal area too. So, who wins then? That’s different than git where if I clone it I’m pulling your data, you willingly pushed it to my server where I said what I would do with it.
ActivityPub sent it to me automatically, it’s on my server, and on my server I say anything you give me has no license. To me, that’s like the people who say FB has no right my data in a FB post.
The difference between Lemmy and Reddit is that it was Reddit’s servers, they owned the data, and there was an agreement by signing up on who owned it - Reddit. Lemmy has no such agreement, and the data is not on a “Lemmy” server, it’s stored on everyone’s servers.
you make a good point about push vs pull, although things are only pushed if someone is subscribed (opt-ed in)
I think the proposal is for licenses to become part of the ActivityPub protocol, so all applications would retain the original license of the content, license would be a first class citizen
although without licenses this is functionally the same as email, I wonder how the laws work for that, for example I don’t think you can just plagiarize something that someone wrote, quoted, or copy-pasted to you in an email if it’s actually copyrighted content like from a book (aka content that had a license)