this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
56 points (81.1% liked)

Fediverse

28465 readers
532 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago (4 children)

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?

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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..

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 30 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world -4 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

we cant even get upvote/downvotes federating appropriately across the verse. but yeah, lets get collective license bargaining working.

hilarious

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 0 points 11 months ago

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

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] ethan@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

So we need something more than a ccbync to prevent ads being put next to content?

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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)

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Exactly the implementation i was invisioning.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If they want to make money off my content, they can pay me my share of their profits.

[–] dandroid@dandroid.app 0 points 11 months ago

Unfortunately, unless you have a good lawyer, they're probably just going to ignore you anyway, even if they legally can't.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 11 months ago

yeah, these people are fucking stupid.