3 ms·

Public = consent for the public to see it. That includes the public on Bluesky. It was consensual. And the ruckus was in fact about Bluesky in particular. That'

Public = consent for the public to see it. That includes the public on Bluesky. It was consensual. And the ruckus was in fact about Bluesky in particular. That's why the same project already supported other protocols without a big ruckus. In general, "I want my stuff on Bluesky but don't want to deal with cross-posting to multiple different platforms and keeping up with responses on all of them" And, "I want my stuff on whatever platform people want to read it on without having to individually approve each one" (which is quite literally the entire point of public posts on Mastodon). OH - and it wasn't the bridge creator's decision anyway; it was the decision of people on Bluesky to follow you that would trigger your posts to be federated, so...

15457345234 3y ago
[flagged]
- Repulsion9513 3y ago
  When you share a public post on Mastodon, you are by implication licensing that content for redistribution. Because other Mastodon servers have to redistribute it in order for anyone on another instance to see it. Hope that helps you understand the basic stuff here. (Either that or every Mastodon server in existence is a massive copyright violation, which is frankly quite possible given how bad copyright law is)
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    I’m a sucker for a particular mix of condescending plus wrong.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      Except they are not wrong. Maybe not in the specifics but in general this is exactly how AP-servers work. If you are on server A and follow someone on server B, then the posts from B will be on your server and there is absolutely no way that the "original owner" of the post on server B to remove the post from A.
    - Repulsion9513 3y ago
      So am I, that's why I replied to the people who were condescending plus wrong :)
  - Angostura 3y ago
    > When you share a public post on Mastodon, you are by implication licensing that content for redistribution…. … on Mastodon
    - icehawk 3y ago
      ...on a server that speaks ActivityPub. Mastodon is one such piece of software.
      - Angostura 3y ago
        Yup, thank you for the correction
    - Repulsion9513 3y ago
      The common term for the network formed by software speaking ActivityPub is "Mastodon", despite that formally being the name of a single piece of that software. Do you also have a problem with Pleroma or Akkoma or whatever? If not then this isn't relevant.
- rglullis 3y ago
  No, not "basic" stuff at all. It's not only "allowed", federation works exactly by replicating all the activities from the remote servers and even the images you share. If you don't believe it, just go ahead and see what happens when you repost a message from someone's server. The repost will come from your server, not the original creator. Or try deleting a conversation on your server and notice how the other instances will still keep everything intact. Also, what would be the problem if you put content on your server and someone downloads it and holds a copy? No one is redistributing your content trying to pass it as their own. Attribution is still preserved. What is the copyright violation here?
  - Repulsion9513 3y ago
    > If you don't believe it, just go ahead and see what happens when you repost a message from someone's server It's not just reposts. The original post itself is served to viewers by their instance, which is redistribution. (To do otherwise would actually be a massive privacy - and security - concern.) (To be clear, media - but not the post itself - can be requested directly from the original instance, but any reputable instance will be running a proxy so that random strangers can't trivially get your IP address...)
- TylerE 3y ago
  This is more like when you send an email to gmail.com, Google is allowed to forward the message to its intended recipient.
kstrauser 3y ago
It was meant for the public to see, not to bulk copy it en masse to somewhere else. Similarly, I don't want my blog posts used to train LLMs. I know they're likely to be since they're published right there on the Internet for anyone to see and read. But my intent was for other humans to see and read them, not for someone to feed them into a regurgitator. There aren't technical means that let me allow humans to read my stuff without allowing LLMs to ingest it, and someone could make the (bad) case that if I didn't want my work to be used to train an LLM, I shouldn't have made it public. Maybe. However, I reserve the right to think someone's an ass for doing it. Well, no technical hurdles kept the person from copying data out of the network people meant to post it to. It's probably not illegal. It's not a nice thing to do, though.
- Repulsion9513 3y ago
  > It was meant for the public to see, not to bulk copy it en masse to somewhere else. Except literally the entire design is for other Mastodon servers to bulk copy it en masse to somewhere else. > There aren't technical means that let me allow humans to read my stuff without allowing LLMs to ingest it Yes there are. Don't make it public. > However, I reserve the right to think someone's an ass for doing it. Of course! You can think anyone is an ass. You can think anything you want. That doesn't mean that person did anything wrong.

15457345234 3y ago

[flagged]

Repulsion9513 3y ago
When you share a public post on Mastodon, you are by implication licensing that content for redistribution. Because other Mastodon servers have to redistribute it in order for anyone on another instance to see it. Hope that helps you understand the basic stuff here. (Either that or every Mastodon server in existence is a massive copyright violation, which is frankly quite possible given how bad copyright law is)
- kstrauser 3y ago
  I’m a sucker for a particular mix of condescending plus wrong.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    Except they are not wrong. Maybe not in the specifics but in general this is exactly how AP-servers work. If you are on server A and follow someone on server B, then the posts from B will be on your server and there is absolutely no way that the "original owner" of the post on server B to remove the post from A.
  - Repulsion9513 3y ago
    So am I, that's why I replied to the people who were condescending plus wrong :)
- Angostura 3y ago
  > When you share a public post on Mastodon, you are by implication licensing that content for redistribution…. … on Mastodon
  - icehawk 3y ago
    ...on a server that speaks ActivityPub. Mastodon is one such piece of software.
    - Angostura 3y ago
      Yup, thank you for the correction
  - Repulsion9513 3y ago
    The common term for the network formed by software speaking ActivityPub is "Mastodon", despite that formally being the name of a single piece of that software. Do you also have a problem with Pleroma or Akkoma or whatever? If not then this isn't relevant.
rglullis 3y ago
No, not "basic" stuff at all. It's not only "allowed", federation works exactly by replicating all the activities from the remote servers and even the images you share. If you don't believe it, just go ahead and see what happens when you repost a message from someone's server. The repost will come from your server, not the original creator. Or try deleting a conversation on your server and notice how the other instances will still keep everything intact. Also, what would be the problem if you put content on your server and someone downloads it and holds a copy? No one is redistributing your content trying to pass it as their own. Attribution is still preserved. What is the copyright violation here?
- Repulsion9513 3y ago
  > If you don't believe it, just go ahead and see what happens when you repost a message from someone's server It's not just reposts. The original post itself is served to viewers by their instance, which is redistribution. (To do otherwise would actually be a massive privacy - and security - concern.) (To be clear, media - but not the post itself - can be requested directly from the original instance, but any reputable instance will be running a proxy so that random strangers can't trivially get your IP address...)
TylerE 3y ago
This is more like when you send an email to gmail.com, Google is allowed to forward the message to its intended recipient.

kstrauser 3y ago

It was meant for the public to see, not to bulk copy it en masse to somewhere else. Similarly, I don't want my blog posts used to train LLMs. I know they're likely to be since they're published right there on the Internet for anyone to see and read. But my intent was for other humans to see and read them, not for someone to feed them into a regurgitator. There aren't technical means that let me allow humans to read my stuff without allowing LLMs to ingest it, and someone could make the (bad) case that if I didn't want my work to be used to train an LLM, I shouldn't have made it public. Maybe. However, I reserve the right to think someone's an ass for doing it. Well, no technical hurdles kept the person from copying data out of the network people meant to post it to. It's probably not illegal. It's not a nice thing to do, though.

Repulsion9513 3y ago
> It was meant for the public to see, not to bulk copy it en masse to somewhere else. Except literally the entire design is for other Mastodon servers to bulk copy it en masse to somewhere else. > There aren't technical means that let me allow humans to read my stuff without allowing LLMs to ingest it Yes there are. Don't make it public. > However, I reserve the right to think someone's an ass for doing it. Of course! You can think anyone is an ass. You can think anything you want. That doesn't mean that person did anything wrong.