Ive seen that pixelfed and peertube have the ability to add a licence to content. I think this would be great for everyone so we can get ahead of threads and have collective bargaining power when they inevitable put our content between ads.
Heres the pixelfed duscyssion on the issue: https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed/issues/13 Here is mastadons discussion: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/20079
Im not sure if lemmy has a discussion yet i may create one later if one doesnt already exist.
I don’t have a particular problem with instances deciding that they want to fund themselves through advertising. When the Fediverse was developing, one of my predictions was that instances would come up with multiple different ways to fund each other including donations, subscriptions and advertising.
Do you never e-mail people with gmail or yahoo addresses?
Then a good solution would be a license that specifically disallows any entity that works with/for Meta to use your content for advertising.
Your welcome to licence ur content so that can happen if you’d like to. Id prefer not to support that and to have some backing against that.
The social media companies seem to think their data is valuable. If we licence it then they canot extract value from it therefore they have no reason to exert influence over the fediverse.
They can place ads under CCBYNC photos though. It just would mean people cant sell the photos themself not the space around the photos
Really how is using my content to get people to view your ads not using it for commercial purposes?
They’re not using your content they’re using their own websites screen space
So a licwnce forbidding the showing of content on a page with ads would solve this problem?
Unlikely that any of us can answer this question properly unless we happen to know detailed laws for every country in the world. If we want a real answer we can trust then we’d need a statement from someone like the EFF otherwise our “licence” is barely more than one of those chain-letter comments saying “I do not give Facebook the right to do X”.
So a licwnce forbidding the showing of content on a page with ads would solve this problem?
Your comment could not be googled either. You’re aware of that, right?
Also: Welcome to fair use, the amazing provision that got snuck in the DMCA which is otherwise a shitshow. Not only does this allow English Wikipedia to use copyrighted movie posters in articles about those movies, it’s also the backdoor used legitimizing reaction videos. People could quote your comments, make a reaction around them, boom, fair use.
No system is perfect. Just because there are issues with one licensing setup doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try another.
They can place ads under CCBYNC photos though.
It depends. If the photographer uploads the photo to a platform, the photographer gives that platform permission to use it under the platform’s EULA. The platform cannot legally crawl the web for NC images and then make money off placing ads around them.
Do you think the following would fly in a court? “We, the Walt Disney Corporation, do not profit off the non-commercial assets used in the Avengers movie that we found on an asset store. We profit of everything around those assets. Those assets are distributed free of charge, the movie around those assets isn’t.”
This is as dumb as idea as charging for links eg Canada or fucking reposting a terms of service on your Facebook page. And you’ll just go steal some content from YouTube because it’s not stealing it’s copying 🤣
Take whan happened in canada with a grain of salt cause that’s as monopoly vs monopoly, of course the outcome is gonna be as functional as a 2 y/o whining contest
👌👍
Explicitly denying a list of companies, e.g. Meta for now, is likely more legally defensible and gets around the issue of indie devs (who mayhap have TOS that allow ads, and it’s the eye of the user that sees the ads, still patreon or straight up paid apps are more in keeping with the fediverse IMO). It also makes the point very specific that these assholes are unwelcome. Perhaps the EFF or someone could draft something… Trick would be to update it as new pricks enter the arena, but that doesn’t seem unachievable.
So, if some indy developer creates an app for the Fediverse and decides to support himself by putting ads in it rather than requiring people to pay for it, he’s hooped?
If they’re trying to profit off of content on instances they don’t have licensing to them yes, they cannot steal that content. We would want instance wide licensing that would be attached to each post that explicitly states the content cannot be used alongside ads to generate revenue. Some instances may choose not to have this licensing so their content could be used with ads, but it would prevent companies from stealing content posted by people who don’t want this. The value in any social media is the user base, the cost of ad space goes up the more people use the social media, to get users you need engaging new content all the time, with the fideverse anyone can pull content and display it on their instance, some users don’t want to create the content that someone else uses to make money.
Creating a paid or ad-supported client app for a website isn’t profiting off of content, it’s profiting off of the user’s desire for a better mobile experience. There’s no ‘stealing’, the developer never has access to nor purports to own any of the content themselves- it’s simply a voluntary intermediary for a user to access their own account with their own content feed.
That said, any client apps that run ads are dumb and will fail miserably. It’s awful for UX. Just so long as client apps can be monetized in other ways I think it’s fine to adopt a license that prohibits specifically ads.
So we need something more than a ccbync to prevent ads being put next to content?
deleted by creator
I believe the other platforms do it individualy by post so u as a user can choose. I reccon this is a better implementation than instance wide but i suppose an instance coild have a default.
Instance default makes sense
Most users won’t mess with settings and details. Then if a user wants, they can select from a specific set of licenses (with simple language explanations for what they mean)
Exactly the implementation i was invisioning.
I don’t care if its meta or some indy dev my content and my data belong to me and i should have the right to licence it how i feel fit…
I find it so ironic that people come to the Fediverse, an explicitly open protocol, and then get super possessive about “their data” and demand all kinds of controls over how it’s used that even the big centralized walled gardens like Reddit don’t provide.
You’re posting publicly in a public forum that’s designed to spread your comments far and wide to systems all over the world. I don’t think you’re going to have much luck at enforcing those rights.
im having this same experience.
these people post publicly on public websites accessed by anonymous, public people federated to possibly thousands of servers and still some have this expectation of privacy/ownership.
to me the 'verse is little more than shouting into the void on a street corner. you dont control the sound once it leaves your mouth. youre done managing that content.
boggles my mind that the people in this thread are this butthurt about their cat pics next to a ad on the threads server. what a bunch of fucking babies.
Just cos its open doesnt mean im giving it away for use in any purpose. I still own it im just allowing the rest if the fediverse to ses it and respond to it.
Sight is an explicitly open protocal anyone i meet can see my face doesnt mean they have the right to profit from the likeness of my face.
You’re free to feel how you want to feel, but it’s worth talking about how this might affect existing and future development for the fediverse
Large corporations have a knack for getting around (or straight up ignoring) restrictions that stop others. Just look at how they profit from existing licensed content, and pay a tiny fee when someone finally wins a legal case against them. I think the commenter above is also saying that it would suck if a change kills off smaller dev projects and makes it so only giant corporations can do it.
Not that this is the wrong idea, just that it’s worth thinking about. On top of ads, other areas licensing may help with are privacy and use in training data for LLMs
Im sure they will just totally ignore licencing but in the long term its going to give us a lot of collective bargaining power when it comes to corporations tryung to prifit from the fedivsere.
My ideal implementation would be each post has a licence decided by the poster and each instance has a default. In that case if u wanna post with a free for anyone to do anything go ahead its your choice.
The only privacy the fediverse provides is through anonymity i doubt licencing would effect that at all. But llm training it could force a lot more opensource into this world.
we cant even get upvote/downvotes federating appropriately across the verse. but yeah, lets get collective license bargaining working.
hilarious
Why give up. We came to the fediverse to escape the evils of large centralised tech companies why should we let them come take this too.
ive already won my battle.
i control the flow of data into my server, now. licensing content is not a problem i have, nor do i care about what federating instances do with the content i publicly broadcast.
threads is not going to be some special exception to this… not even out of spite
If they want to make money off my content, they can pay me my share of their profits.
Unfortunately, unless you have a good lawyer, they’re probably just going to ignore you anyway, even if they legally can’t.
yeah, these people are fucking stupid.
deleted by creator
