[–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I’m a programmer. If someone had an interest they could preserve all of your self-hosted data without your permission. I think it is worth considering tho, if all of this is valuable then it would be ideal if we could get that value into the accounts of people in need rather than the alternative.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Interesting take. I like the light philosophical bend there with the mental value. I think you’re right about that. I have been more considering whether the cumulative data of a platform like Lemmy as a whole is something that we as the users/server should be asserting our ownership of. Or, whether it is effectively worthless.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Agreed it would be trivial for Meta to obtain the posts. But I think the concern of most people here isn’t Meta obtaining the posts, it’s Meta monetizing them through ads and training. Would it not be in our best interest to try to prevent this?

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Interesting perspective. Yet, server admins actually do have control over who they federate with. People do have control over what servers they use. Why not exercise this control?

    My understanding is that one can post things publicly online but still retain rights, including distribution rights in certain jurisdictions.

    I don’t think it is out of the question that the fediverse as a whole could make some decisions going forward that would make it more difficult for Meta (or other official corporations) to monetize the things we post with ads in their clients or through training of predictive models.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    An interesting thought. I’m not sure this is entirely true though in many jurisdictions. It is clearly possible to post something on someone else’s server and still maintain ownership of it. Platforms like SoundCloud have you specify a license in the ui client at the time of upload. While this might seem performative, it is explicit.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 years ago

    Thanks for sharing. I honestly was wondering how people were thinking about this. I was wondering why not include a license specified per post in the client UI as that seemed quite explicit. Yet, I was wondering how this might prohibit federation from being controlled at the server level.

    I had considered ads in clients and llm training. Both of which, people in need should be paid for if it is using content they generated if at all possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • OO awkward (programming.dev)
     

    addEventListener accept function references rather than objects with expected methods like handleEvent

    setTimeout and setInterval array map, filter, reduce, forEach, etc. promise then, catch, finally

    bind awkward

    closures

    what say v8? hidden classes

    fully init objects give me more perf tips

    view more: next ›