4 ms·
I love how the content belongs to them when someone else reposts it but it belongs to the user if the content is illegal. Such a double standard with these soci
by jm4 18d ago
I love how the content belongs to them when someone else reposts it but it belongs to the user if the content is illegal. Such a double standard with these social media and AI companies. Why do we put up with it?
- embedding-shape 18d ago> Why do we put up with it? You let it happen. Once people stop letting it happen, it'll stop. But social media is apparently the new "opium of the masses" so here we are and no one wants to do anything.
- flaburgan 18d agoI actually do want to do something. I started to scrape Twitter to make it freely available. The web should stay open.
- immibis2 18d agoI am also doing something, by hosting one of the public instances of Nitter. Nitter is useful for sporadic random access to tweets, but for public feeds like municipal authorities etc. it would be useful if someone scraped the feed and re-hosted the feed from their own server, without being hobbled by rate limits. Is that what you're doing?
- simianparrot 18d agoDid the users of X consent to XCancel copying their posts to their servers?
- conception 18d agoEveryone who goes to twitter copies the posts to their computers.
- 27183 18d agoSpot on. This is where a lot of these "terms and conditions" break down logically. Viewing some content on the internet is literally copying it. So is the distinction that xcancel served the content? But when I run mtr xcancel.com I see a bunch of hops between me and them. Every one of those hops is literally copying and retransmitting all the content. Are they not also serving it?
- immibis2 18d agoNo, this is where programmers rules-lawyer in ways that actual lawyers don't and then get law stuff hilariously wrong. No judge thinks that viewing an HTML page is downloading it, because downloading means saving a copy to your computer, not just looking at it. Even having an internet cache folder doesn't count as downloading. Even copying the file from the internet cache folder to somewhere might not count as downloading, although it'd still be a copy. Same as when LG said their TVs don't record you and then Hacker News said "how can they detect voice commands if they don't record your voice"... facepalm.
- 27183 18d agoI don't pretend to understand law, mostly it just doesn't make sense at all.
- rimunroe 18d agoCould you elaborate in what way you find the law mostly doesn't make sense? It has to be flexible in order to work with actual humans. Why should visiting a page on your computer count as copying? Usually when we talk about copying it's someone making a duplicate so it can be accessed later. Only a very technical user is going to be diving into their cache to view that content after the fact. The vast majority of people don't understand that the browser is storing anything on their computer, much less how to access it before it's purged.
- Levitz 18d agoWe put up with it mostly because it enables a lot of communication to happen at all. You want to hold the corporations legally liable for the content their host, you can say goodbye to basically reddit as a whole, any twitter clone, youtube comment sections and a whole more stuff.