Given how Reddit now makes money by selling its data to AI companies, I was wondering how the situation is for the fediverse. Typically you can block AI crawlers using robot.txt (Verge reported about it recently: https://www.theverge.com/24067997/robots-txt-ai-text-file-web-crawlers-spiders). But this only works per domain/server, and the fediverse is about many different servers interacting with each other.

So if my kbin/lemmy or Mastodon server blocks OpenAI's crawler via robot.txt, what does that even mean when people on other servers that don't block this crawler are boosting me on Mastodon, or if I reply to their posts. I suspect unless all the servers I interact with block the same AI crawlers, I cannot prevent my posts from being used as AI training data?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 9 months ago (6 children)

it really sounds like you really want a walled garden so you can control your.. .whatever. the fediverse is public by nature, so discussing how you can control public information is kinda.. weird.

[–] cecep@fedia.io 3 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Is it? Reddit is technically "public" too in the sense that you can view all the content without an account, yet Google and others pay for the data anyway. And for many years, people made stuff public and could reasonably expect it won't show up in any major search engines because Google, MS and others respected robot.txt. I know it was never legally binding. I'm also not naive, I know I give up control when I post publicly and there won't ever be a perfect solution to the AI crawler situation. But a lot is changing right now, regulatory and technologically.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

the fact that google has to pay for the data proves the walled garden you claim is public.

the fediverse is public, by default. it publicly distributes information to other publicly accessible servers.. by default.

its public information on publicly accessible servers that are opt-out by default. publicly.

im baffled how people can have some expectation of privacy in such a clearly defined public space.

[–] cecep@fedia.io 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You don't need to explain to me how the Fediverse works and I never said I have any expectation of privacy. But generally speaking, you're overlooking the fact that there always have been rules for what can, and cannot be done with information that is publicly available. Just because someone publicly posts his Facebook profile picture doesn't mean it's legal to use in an ad without permission, for example. People might break the rules, yes, but then they might face consequences, and that alone prevents many from breaking them in the first place. Not perfect, but better than nothing. And I'm saying we're in a process where rules are being renegotiated when it comes to using public information for AI training

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

fair points, but i still posit that its a waste of time to attempt to regulate what can be viewed anonymously.

personally, i could not possibly care less about any of my data being ingested by 'ai'. not a battle i care to fight, or even find worthy of fighting.

[–] cecep@fedia.io 4 points 9 months ago

That's fair, but I think if AI companies would be legally required to disclose the sources of their training data and if you make some successor to robot.txt legally binding as well (both is being discussed in the EU for example), at least the "bigger players" in the AI industry would respect the rules. Better than nothing

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)