zlacker

>>dend+(OP)
> Exploiting user-generated content.

You know, if I've noticed anything in the past couple years, it's that even if you self-host your own site, it's still going to get hoovered up and used/exploited by things like AI training bots. I think between everyone's code getting trained on, even if it's AGPLv3 or something similarly restrictive, and generally everything public on the internet getting "trained" and "transformed" to basically launder it via "AI", I can absolutely see why someone rational would want to share a whole lot less, anywhere, in an open fashion, regardless of where it's hosted.

I'd honestly rather see and think more about how to segment communities locally, and go back to the "fragmented" way things once were. It's easier to want to share with other real people than inadvertently working for free to enrich companies.

>>rpcope+9j
Nothing to disagree in this statement, for sure. If it's on the open internet, it will almost surely be used for AI training, consent be damned. But it feels like even at a rudimentary level, if I post a picture on my site that is then used by a large publisher for ads, I would (at least in theory) have some recourse to pursue the matter and prevent them from using my content.

In contrast, if I uploaded something to a social media site like Instagram, and then Meta "sublicensed" my image to someone else, I wouldn't have much to say there.

Would love someone with actual legal knowledge to chime in here.

>>dend+uj
> Meta "sublicensed" my image to someone else, I wouldn't have much to say there.

but you agreed to this, when agreeing to the TOS.

> I post a picture on my site that is then used by a large publisher for ads, I would (at least in theory) have some recourse

which you didn't sign any contract, and therefore it is a violation of copyright.

But the new AI training methods are currently, at least imho, not a violation of copyright - not any more than a human eye viewing it (which you've implicitly given permission to do so, by putting it up on the internet). On the other hand, if you put it behind a gate (no matter how trivial), then you could've at least legally protected yourself.

>>chii+0k
Strong disagree on the last paragraph. It's data online, your data, and it was used for commercial purposes without your consent.

In fact, I never consented for anyone to access my server. Just because it has an IP address, does not make it a public service.

Obviously in a practical sense that is a silly position to take, and in prior cases there is usually an extenuating factor that got the person charged, eg breaking through access controls, violating ToS, or intellectual property violations.

But I don't rescind the prior statement. Just because I have an address doesn't mean you can come in through any unlocked doors.