3 ms·

> They stopped being exclusively yours to take back once you contributed them to a broader conversation. Says who, exactly? Stack Overflow, previously, did not

> They stopped being exclusively yours to take back once you contributed them to a broader conversation. Says who, exactly? Stack Overflow, previously, did not say this. Reddit threads get deleted all the time. Facebook posts slide into the ephemeral "past" and are never seen again. Old forums die entirely, with nothing but (hopefully) a copy on the wayback machine. And that's just regular old rot, in this case, Stack Overflow is explicitly changing the rules on what they can do with writing provided by volunteers under a previous understood agreement, to a new agreement, with no opportunity for negotiation and no engagement with their community. Simply an edict, issued from On High: "We can now sell your contributions to AI companies." And I'm sure for plenty of people they don't give a shit, but clearly some do, and so we get what HN is constantly clamoring for, individuals making decisions about their own creations and their own speech, but now it's suddenly bad because it's the Wrong decision.

matsemann 2y ago
You're mistaken. All content on SO has always been creative commons licensed when you post it. Hence all spam duplicates on Google but also other cool usage of the massive data. They aren't retrospectively changing anything. Edit: source https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing CC BY-SA
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  In that case they are changing what they do instead of changing a rule about what they do. A difference with a slight distinction. The point is: people don't want their code used to train code bots. Their wishes should be respected. Not because it's legally required, but because they are our peers in this industry and worthy of respect.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    It’s fair use. Get used to it
    - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
      You aren't factually wrong, but this attitude is probably why developers are torching their accounts over this. Legally being in the clear is not the same thing as ethically being in the clear, and the continued abuse by the public square by these giant, faceless corporations is just engendering more hostility. And it's all well and good to make those decisions, but if code-generating AI is anything like text-generating AI, they're going to want more. Probably not a great plan to piss off all the people who produce the thing you need, for free, before you have enough of it. Assuming there is such a thing as enough of it, of course.
      - firesteelrain 2y ago
        Everyone knew it went into the database and the fair use if you had been around SO since the beginning was always part of the deal. SO even serves ads. These “developers” are very immature and naive. SO is a business
lxgr 2y ago
> Stack Overflow, previously, did not say this. It's always a good idea to read the copyright/usage terms of sites you might be contributing to. Stack Overflow has been very transparently licensing their content under creative commons since the beginning; that's a big part of why I occasionally contribute to it.
fabian2k 2y ago
It was always that way, the user content has always been CC-licensed. And SO has suspended users for deleting/vandalizing their own posts for a long time.

matsemann 2y ago

You're mistaken. All content on SO has always been creative commons licensed when you post it. Hence all spam duplicates on Google but also other cool usage of the massive data. They aren't retrospectively changing anything. Edit: source https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing CC BY-SA

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
In that case they are changing what they do instead of changing a rule about what they do. A difference with a slight distinction. The point is: people don't want their code used to train code bots. Their wishes should be respected. Not because it's legally required, but because they are our peers in this industry and worthy of respect.
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  It’s fair use. Get used to it
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    You aren't factually wrong, but this attitude is probably why developers are torching their accounts over this. Legally being in the clear is not the same thing as ethically being in the clear, and the continued abuse by the public square by these giant, faceless corporations is just engendering more hostility. And it's all well and good to make those decisions, but if code-generating AI is anything like text-generating AI, they're going to want more. Probably not a great plan to piss off all the people who produce the thing you need, for free, before you have enough of it. Assuming there is such a thing as enough of it, of course.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      Everyone knew it went into the database and the fair use if you had been around SO since the beginning was always part of the deal. SO even serves ads. These “developers” are very immature and naive. SO is a business

lxgr 2y ago

> Stack Overflow, previously, did not say this. It's always a good idea to read the copyright/usage terms of sites you might be contributing to. Stack Overflow has been very transparently licensing their content under creative commons since the beginning; that's a big part of why I occasionally contribute to it.

fabian2k 2y ago

It was always that way, the user content has always been CC-licensed. And SO has suspended users for deleting/vandalizing their own posts for a long time.