51
Blocking AI crawlers on the fediverse
(fedia.io)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
51 points (88.1% liked)
Fediverse
28398 readers
462 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
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general 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
Thanks for confirming. It's unfortunate that people who are outraged about Reddit selling their data to AI companies don't really have an alternative in the fediverse.
I guess the best hope is for new mechanisms to control AI crawlers to emerge, so they can be blocked per user rather than per domain. Maybe https://spawning.ai will come up with something. One can hope.
I really don't see how it would be physically possible to do that and still allow the content to be publicly seen by other humans.
It is unfortunate, buy we are giving our data freely, as we did on Spezzit. IMHO it would be great to block efforts to monetize Lemmy by ai, but that is not what we signed up for.
Lemmy is neither private, nor closed. It's just the way it works.
Contributing in an open forum means the data will get harvested. If it closed there will be fewer views, open is what we have now.
Companies will train on what we post, we are not giving that (directly) to a centralized service though. To me that compromise is enough.
I don't see it as hypocritical at all. Public comments are, for me at least, put out for the public good. The same reason someone might license open source code with the MIT license. My issue with Reddit is that they restricted who can obtain the data and then privately sold them to only the highest bidder. They should be freely available to all who want to view them without restrictions on money or power.
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.
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.
I think you are mistaking publicly available with public. Just because reddit made everyone's posts publicly available doesn't mean they are public. Once you post something, they have the right to use that data in any way they choose, and you agreed to that when you signed up. Per their user agreement:
"You retain any ownership rights you have in Your Content, but you grant Reddit the following license to use that Content:
When Your Content is created with or submitted to the Services, you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works of, distribute, store, perform, and display Your Content and any name, username, voice, or likeness provided in connection with Your Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed anywhere in the world. This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit. You also agree that we may remove metadata associated with Your Content, and you irrevocably waive any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content."
Because they allow anyone to see the posts doesn't make it "public" data, it just means that they are allowing you access to the data they now have a license to. Now lets say you work for a state agency. Any work you do is property of said state and is public. I believe the same goes for some government agencies, like NASA. The work they produce is public. That's completely different than reddit allowing you to post on their platform and then allowing others to see your post. They can do whatever they want with the data, including turning it off one day and just sitting on it if they wanted. Expecting anything public from a private company, well good luck with that. Back to lemmy, well even if you blocked all AI from scraping from an instance, nothing would stop a company from just setting up their own instance, federating it, and just sucking up all the info as it comes in. Nothing you post on here will ever be private.
I think people are about to learn a hard lesson on the internet. Nothing is ever private if it is online.
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.
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
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.
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