4 ms·

Posting images, articles and other content doesn’t grant everyone the right to use it for every purpose. Especially not to republishing it partially under the e

Posting images, articles and other content doesn’t grant everyone the right to use it for every purpose. Especially not to republishing it partially under the excuse a machine is doing it. It’s just not the same as someone getting inspired by it or citing it. Automatically doing something is a whole other quality from a person doing it. Police watching a protest is fine, police filming it or documenting all participants via face recognition is forbidden (at least here).

AStonesThrow 2y ago
Well, look at it this way: you gave stuff to LinkedIn. Whatever their terms say, they're storing your stuff, they are serving your stuff, and they've reserved the right to extract value from your stuff in perpetuity, according to your agreements when you signed up, when you posted, and when they updated. Doesn't matter about your privacy settings, because it all happened on LI. I mean, you can delete the stuff you posted if you don't want future AIs trained? Delete your whole account if you didn't like LinkedIn messing with it? (I could likewise say this about MS Windows, Apples or anything: if you don't want someone to have your stuff, give it to someone else, or don't give at all?) But in the end, you voluntarily gave it to them, because it was free, but you are the product, and not the artist.
- ManBeardPc 2y ago
  I partially agree, you agree to the terms of service. However one should also not forget that LinkedIn is quite dominant and a very big player. For many businesses it is simply not an option to not be on their platform, unless they can afford to lose potential customers and employees. Rules change for monopolies and oligopolies, and for a good reason IMHO. LinkedIn belongs to Microsoft, so does GitHub. Don’t forget Windows, Azure, Office, Visual Studio and a long list of other products. They want to take your data from all possible sources and if you just point to the TOS alone this would be totally valid. But we have to look at the bigger picture and already do so in other areas, for example GDPR.
- gomerspiles 2y ago
  Microsoft probably owns the physical media from before LinkedIn was acquired so by your physical ownership logic they can keep using all the data you have "deleted" and ignore your new opt outs on all those backups.. The point of making legislation is to have things to enforce at times like buy outs to say things there is no reasonable way to enforce our expectation that our 2FA numbers are not abused by this new buyer so the buyout can not continue. Maybe you don't need a job social network, but presuming you do you have no way of knowing what org will own the physical media of the one you pick today unless it is in a country with competence, I.e. not the US.
zaptrem 2y ago
I understand and completely agree republishing content (even altered) isn't cool, and I also agree government use of technology for mass surveillance is incompatible with our idea of democratic/open societies. However, in the case of LinkedIn posts you have already given the ideas behind your content to the world (and in this case specifically and explicitly LinkedIn) for free. I've said this before, but it's sad how quickly this community swapped from being champions of the free exchange and use of information for the betterment of humanity to gleefully stomping on an incredible and beautiful new technology because someone else might make money off it. Reminds me of the Judgement of Solomon [1] (people would rather kill the whole technology and all the incredible things that may come with it then miss out on "my cut!", "my cut!" even if it's a single LinkedIn post in a corpus of billions) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_of_Solomon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_of_Solomon
- Barrin92 2y ago
  >I also agree government use of technology for mass surveillance is incompatible with our idea of democratic/open societies. well, corporate use of technology for mass surveillance is equally incompatible with the idea of a democratic society, which is why the EU imposes limits on what LInkedIn can do with your data, and thank God for it. Free exchange of information is being able to access a textbook at the library, not a corporate behemoth vacuuming people's personal information so they can sell them to the highest bidder to put you under surveillance the next time you attempt to switch a job or send you more ads. Betterment of humanity? Blink twice if a LinkedIn PR person is holding you at gunpoint
  - zaptrem 2y ago
    > Betterment of humanity? Blink twice if a LinkedIn PR person is holding you at gunpoint I was referring to Generative AI in general, this use-case is quite boring. > a corporate behemoth vacuuming people's personal information so they can sell them to the highest bidder Do people not use LinkedIn to explicitly signal to the world that they're looking for a job? Why does it matter how that information is being delivered? If you don't want the world to know you're looking for a job simply don't update LinkedIn? > corporate use of technology for mass surveillance is equally incompatible with the idea of a democratic society The argument against government power/surveillance is that they have a monopoly on it and may use their power to hurt people. It is good to legally protect sensitive information like health data from advertisers, but in this case you can, again, simply not use LinkedIn. What difference does it make if the info is collected by a company looking for new hires, a third party analytics company working on behalf of them, or LinkedIn itself working on behalf of them? It's not private data.

AStonesThrow 2y ago

Well, look at it this way: you gave stuff to LinkedIn. Whatever their terms say, they're storing your stuff, they are serving your stuff, and they've reserved the right to extract value from your stuff in perpetuity, according to your agreements when you signed up, when you posted, and when they updated. Doesn't matter about your privacy settings, because it all happened on LI. I mean, you can delete the stuff you posted if you don't want future AIs trained? Delete your whole account if you didn't like LinkedIn messing with it? (I could likewise say this about MS Windows, Apples or anything: if you don't want someone to have your stuff, give it to someone else, or don't give at all?) But in the end, you voluntarily gave it to them, because it was free, but you are the product, and not the artist.

ManBeardPc 2y ago
I partially agree, you agree to the terms of service. However one should also not forget that LinkedIn is quite dominant and a very big player. For many businesses it is simply not an option to not be on their platform, unless they can afford to lose potential customers and employees. Rules change for monopolies and oligopolies, and for a good reason IMHO. LinkedIn belongs to Microsoft, so does GitHub. Don’t forget Windows, Azure, Office, Visual Studio and a long list of other products. They want to take your data from all possible sources and if you just point to the TOS alone this would be totally valid. But we have to look at the bigger picture and already do so in other areas, for example GDPR.
gomerspiles 2y ago
Microsoft probably owns the physical media from before LinkedIn was acquired so by your physical ownership logic they can keep using all the data you have "deleted" and ignore your new opt outs on all those backups.. The point of making legislation is to have things to enforce at times like buy outs to say things there is no reasonable way to enforce our expectation that our 2FA numbers are not abused by this new buyer so the buyout can not continue. Maybe you don't need a job social network, but presuming you do you have no way of knowing what org will own the physical media of the one you pick today unless it is in a country with competence, I.e. not the US.

zaptrem 2y ago

I understand and completely agree republishing content (even altered) isn't cool, and I also agree government use of technology for mass surveillance is incompatible with our idea of democratic/open societies. However, in the case of LinkedIn posts you have already given the ideas behind your content to the world (and in this case specifically and explicitly LinkedIn) for free. I've said this before, but it's sad how quickly this community swapped from being champions of the free exchange and use of information for the betterment of humanity to gleefully stomping on an incredible and beautiful new technology because someone else might make money off it. Reminds me of the Judgement of Solomon [1] (people would rather kill the whole technology and all the incredible things that may come with it then miss out on "my cut!", "my cut!" even if it's a single LinkedIn post in a corpus of billions) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_of_Solomon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_of_Solomon

Barrin92 2y ago
>I also agree government use of technology for mass surveillance is incompatible with our idea of democratic/open societies. well, corporate use of technology for mass surveillance is equally incompatible with the idea of a democratic society, which is why the EU imposes limits on what LInkedIn can do with your data, and thank God for it. Free exchange of information is being able to access a textbook at the library, not a corporate behemoth vacuuming people's personal information so they can sell them to the highest bidder to put you under surveillance the next time you attempt to switch a job or send you more ads. Betterment of humanity? Blink twice if a LinkedIn PR person is holding you at gunpoint
- zaptrem 2y ago
  > Betterment of humanity? Blink twice if a LinkedIn PR person is holding you at gunpoint I was referring to Generative AI in general, this use-case is quite boring. > a corporate behemoth vacuuming people's personal information so they can sell them to the highest bidder Do people not use LinkedIn to explicitly signal to the world that they're looking for a job? Why does it matter how that information is being delivered? If you don't want the world to know you're looking for a job simply don't update LinkedIn? > corporate use of technology for mass surveillance is equally incompatible with the idea of a democratic society The argument against government power/surveillance is that they have a monopoly on it and may use their power to hurt people. It is good to legally protect sensitive information like health data from advertisers, but in this case you can, again, simply not use LinkedIn. What difference does it make if the info is collected by a company looking for new hires, a third party analytics company working on behalf of them, or LinkedIn itself working on behalf of them? It's not private data.