3 ms·

[deleted]

by srik 2y ago

[deleted]

paxys 2y ago
"Personal data" that was voluntarily published on a public microblogging platform with the explicit intention to share it with the world?
- srik 2y ago
  [deleted]
  - ronsor 2y ago
    Don't make it public then.
    - srik 2y ago
      [deleted]
      - ronsor 2y ago
        Is it more entitled to observe public data than to willingly put data in the public and then expect to control the actions of others?
      - paxys 2y ago
        Is you reading my comment on HN also entitlement? I certainly didn't give you permission to do it. It may have some personal details that I don't want you to see. Why do you think that is okay?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - loeber 2y ago
    The data is public by default. You know this when you sign up and use the service. This should inform your expectations of how the data will be used.
- danparsonson 2y ago
  Would it make a difference if we were talking about articles on a news website? I'm kind of on the fence on this one but I can see the point of view that just posting something online doesn't necessarily grant the end user an unlimited license to use the data. Source code is another example; open-sourcing a project doesn't automatically give someone else the right to use that code in their own projects. Does Bluesky explicitly state the license the user will be publishing under (Creative Commons or whatever), or allow them to choose one?
  - paxys 2y ago
    > Would it make a difference if we were talking about articles on a news website. News articles are pretty explicitly copyrighted and published for a commercial purpose. The websites make their terms clear when you visit. I don't think anyone can argue that it is legal to copy and distribute these articles, same as a book or movie or song. Data posted on Bluesky on the other hand is meant to be broadly shared using the AT protocol. It is quite literally a feature. If you create your own Bluesky client, for example, you aren't committing copyright violation by downloading someone else's posts on there. Similarly, you aren't going against any terms of service by consuming a firehose of data from an AT relay.
    - danparsonson 2y ago
      Right, that's why I asked about Bluesky's content license; just because it's not in your face when you visit, doesn't mean you don't have to abide by it. You understand that categories of usage are important, right? No-one is breaking the GPL by reading source code, but incorporating into your own codebase can be problematic if not done correctly. Similarly, human beings reading the data posted by a Bluesky user is not the same as aggregating and analysing the data of thousands of users. As I said I'm on the fence with this, but I do understand why someone might have a problem with it.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

[deleted]

by srik 2y ago

[deleted]

"Personal data" that was voluntarily published on a public microblogging platform with the explicit intention to share it with the world?

srik 2y ago
[deleted]
- ronsor 2y ago
  Don't make it public then.
  - srik 2y ago
    [deleted]
    - ronsor 2y ago
      Is it more entitled to observe public data than to willingly put data in the public and then expect to control the actions of others?
    - paxys 2y ago
      Is you reading my comment on HN also entitlement? I certainly didn't give you permission to do it. It may have some personal details that I don't want you to see. Why do you think that is okay?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- loeber 2y ago
  The data is public by default. You know this when you sign up and use the service. This should inform your expectations of how the data will be used.
danparsonson 2y ago
Would it make a difference if we were talking about articles on a news website? I'm kind of on the fence on this one but I can see the point of view that just posting something online doesn't necessarily grant the end user an unlimited license to use the data. Source code is another example; open-sourcing a project doesn't automatically give someone else the right to use that code in their own projects. Does Bluesky explicitly state the license the user will be publishing under (Creative Commons or whatever), or allow them to choose one?
- paxys 2y ago
  > Would it make a difference if we were talking about articles on a news website. News articles are pretty explicitly copyrighted and published for a commercial purpose. The websites make their terms clear when you visit. I don't think anyone can argue that it is legal to copy and distribute these articles, same as a book or movie or song. Data posted on Bluesky on the other hand is meant to be broadly shared using the AT protocol. It is quite literally a feature. If you create your own Bluesky client, for example, you aren't committing copyright violation by downloading someone else's posts on there. Similarly, you aren't going against any terms of service by consuming a firehose of data from an AT relay.
  - danparsonson 2y ago
    Right, that's why I asked about Bluesky's content license; just because it's not in your face when you visit, doesn't mean you don't have to abide by it. You understand that categories of usage are important, right? No-one is breaking the GPL by reading source code, but incorporating into your own codebase can be problematic if not done correctly. Similarly, human beings reading the data posted by a Bluesky user is not the same as aggregating and analysing the data of thousands of users. As I said I'm on the fence with this, but I do understand why someone might have a problem with it.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]