this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
580 points (99.2% liked)
Privacy
1312 readers
2 users here now
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I’m not sure what that license has to do with Apple’s privacy policy. Apple uses ML to place ads alongside relevant content. They provide no customer information to advertisers. They generate so much ad revenue by keeping a sizable 30% from the advertisers.
https://support.apple.com/guide/news-publisher/earn-revenue-with-advertising-on-apple-news-apdd44eeeeeb/icloud
https://support.apple.com/guide/adguide/generate-revenue-apd51c721ca9/icloud
I too trust every word apple says.
Anti Commercial-AI license
That’s the second time you posted that. What does it have to do with Apple’s privacy?
The link has nothing to do with the comment, some people just add that to all their posts because they think it will prevent LLMs from using their comments as training data. It's useless and very stupid imo, equivalent to people on facebook a few years back copy and pasting that text about owning their pictures and not giving fb permission to use them even though permission was already given in the sign up agreement.
I actually hate this take. Unlike facebook, on lemmy, you actually own your data. Will this ownership of data be enforced against LLM companies? Probably not. Stackoverflow had everything under a license that requires attribution, but LLM's don't attribute and got away scot free.
But... the license that onlinepersona uses is less restrictive, rather than the default of an individual having absolute copyright over content they make. With onlinepersona's comments, I know exactly what I can legally do with their comments.
As for everybody's else comments, like yours, I don't really know. Can I quote you, with or with out attribution? Can I legally remix comments? Do I have to ask permission before I use your comment in my presentation? You didn't sign any kind of license/agreement that explicitly stated what they can do with your comments, did you?
I'm never gonna complain about someone explicitly releasing their work under a more free license. I find it frustrating that the fediverse is the "free culture" place and all that, but we don't have a way to set copyright (or more likely, copyleft), on our comments. Instead, every comment is the equivalent of proprietary, source available software.
People mad about onlinepersona's CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, like the other poster who is calling them stupid, are literally mad about receiving free shit. Stay mad, I guess. Personally, I'm happy that I am given content under a more free license than proprietary.
I completely understand where you’re coming from, but let’s be real, it doesn’t matter. Copyright is for corporations to protect their assets, not for individuals. The legal system is set up in such a way that it can be weaponised by the wealthy, but is basically unusable by the poor.
If some company started selling your comment printed on a T-Shirt with no attribution, there is nothing you could really do about it unless you could get the story to go viral.
If a corporation wants to include their comments in an AI training dataset, it will. It won’t matter what license the comment is released under.
This is why I am pro-piracy, particularly against large corporations - because corporations don’t respect the copyright of individuals, so why should we respect their copyrights?
https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy/