Programmer and sysadmin (DevOps?), wannabe polymath in tech, science and the mind. Neurodivergent, disabled, burned out, and close to throwing in the towel, but still liking ponies 🦄 and sometimes willing to discuss stuff.
I’ve had to deal with this on the data collection end, and it’s a PITA to build in the mechanisms to fully follow the law. If you’re an EU resident, and especially if the server is in the EU or has to follow EU agreements, then they’d risk some quite high penalties if they didn’t follow it.
Ownership comes with both rights and responsibilities.
Platforms want as many of the rights as possible, without the responsibilities… which is why they have a contract (TOS) where they explicitly renounce to ownership, leaving it for the user, and only license the rights.
If platforms took full ownership, like in a “work for hire” agreement, they would be responsible for any illegal content a user could upload, since it wouldn’t be the user’s content anymore. Obviously they don’t want that.
A side effect of wanting as much content as possible without owning it, is that… well, they don’t own it. 😎
Fediverse where there’s no owner/seller/buyer of your data or anything else you contributed.
Incorrect. You get ownership of anything that’s yours, then upload stuff under whatever TOS your instance has… what’s that? it has no TOS? Then they’re in for a rough awakening some day. 🤷
Whether there are sellers/buyers… is something we’ll learn in time. For now, user generated content on the Fediverse gets shared with little regard or protection of anyone’s rights, so anyone can make a compilation, bundle it up, slap a price tag on it, and try to sell it.
places an undue burden onto the user to determine and explain why data might be personal
The other way around: all data originating from a person, is by default “personal data”, and the burden of explaining which one is not, lies with whoever is keeping it.
you can’t look at any messages in any rooms you’ve been kicked out of
If they’re keeping them, then you can request a GDPR export of ALL your data. Doesn’t matter whether some interface or application allows you access to the data or not, or even if you’ve been banned from the whole platform; as long as they keep the data, they have an obligation to honor your rights of:
Even during obligatory data retention periods, when they can’t remove the data and only make it inaccessible, you still have the right to get a copy of your own personal data.
IIRC, one of the LLMs (was it OpenAI?) that crawled Reddit, had to manually remove subs like r/counting because they were messing with the training.
As long as the link between data and user is severed, they are compliant with GDPR. […] As long as it’s not personally identifiable, it’s OK.
Wrong.
In the US, data protection refers to “personally identifiable” data, so severing the link is enough. Under the GDPR, all “personal” data is protected, doesn’t matter if it has a link or not to identify the person.
The test under the GDPR, will be whether a comment has any personal data in it. If it’s a generic “LMAO”, then leaving it anonymous might be enough; if it is a “look at me [photo attached]” or an “AITA [personal story]”, then the person can ask for it to be removed, not just anonymized.
The difference is: Reddit doesn’t own the content, they can’t stop anyone else from selling it, or giving it for free; only the users could (the actual owners).
There are Reddit content dumps out there, which Reddit can’t stop anyone from using… so not sure what they are selling, but if it’s just that, then they’re scamming people.
From the TOS/EULA, the content belongs to each user, they just license it to Reddit to use as it pleases.
That license would require the AI model to only output content under the same license. Not sure if you realize, but commercial use is part of the OpenSource definition:
Your content would just get filtered out from any training dataset.
As for going against commercial companies… maybe you are a lawyer, otherwise good luck paying the fees.
ChatGPT:
Hello! How can I assist you today?
Some things they did get right…
That’s one of the ideas with MRAM: buy your device already booted up, no more booting up or shutting down (…or reinstalling, or changing the OS).
Then you want to fight FPTP and vote pruning by constituency, to make your vote matter.
You could vote blank, or a poop emoji to show your disconformity, but organizing or supporting a protest to reform the voting system might be more effective.
If we counted all those who don’t vote because it “doesn’t change anything”, those who vote blank or null, and those who vote knowing their vote will still get thrown away… it could actually make a majority.
Yes, attestation is in line with V3 changes, just that it makes them irrelevant: YouTube’s website could some day ask for environment attestation of “no extension using the intercept hooks”, or “only the approved ones”, and still have the same effect. The fact that they’re implementing a server-side anti-adblock now, while postponing V2 deprecation over and over, makes me think the V3 changes are a flop.
Firefox… would likely require Mozilla to play ball and implement similar attestation in an official binary attestable by the OS. Edge too, just so MS doesn’t mess with Chrome’s binary attestation on Windows.
Safari already has attestation, without extra parameters, but it could be extended:
https://httptoolkit.com/blog/apple-private-access-tokens-attestation/
(according to latest statistics, Firefox would have an even lower share)
My point is: if v3 were effective at neutralizing ad blockers in 75% of the user base, or even 95% since Safari is supposed to get on board too, why are they developing additional countermeasures?
Or has Safari decided to do like Firefox, and still allow full ad blockers?
Sounds like the death knell for YT… what’s the point of a centralized platform, if we’re back to links to discover content. They could link to PeerTube.
There was a sweet spot when cat videos went pro. Then the spam killed it.
Advertising is about creating trends, and catching some impulse buyers. Effectiveness is likely overstated, but on the other hand it’s difficult to quantify the effectiveness of a trend. I don’t think it’s likely to ever collapse, people will always want to believe they can influence others more than they actually can.
Wouldn’t this show that they failed, if they have to recur to site-based adblocker blocking? Clearly v3 hasn’t stopped people from using Firefox, yt-dl, or whatever.
That sounds like a question about how much you oppose anarchy. Any change, involves some loss of established order, so if the Overton window tells us something, is that “anarchist parties” are just the ones trying to push it stronger. Actual anarchists, wouldn’t try to be part of a government in the first place.
I don’t agree with the name calling, but many content creators have already set a website, with some outside revenue sources like Patreon, selling merchandise, or other stuff.
They can’t leave the most popular platform, but they can set up alternatives for when it stops being the most popular, and in the meantime also target people who are leaving it already.
Last time SWIM used a patcher, it came with a malware dropper. Is that still how this “free” works?