• Kissaki@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    3 months ago

    Act now

    I was expecting some suggestions to act or unite in opposition. The linked post has none of that though, despite its title. It’s a rant/criticism, not a call to action.

    • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Yet idiots keep upvoting it. Lemmy really isn’t any better than Reddit. I’ll get down voted for saying this though because apparently it’s taboo to criticize lemmy. We have to pretend like it’s somehow magically protected from all the things that made reddit suck ass.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Upvoting/downvoting is supposed to be for post visibility, not because you agree or disagree.

        • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Huh? I know… But why would you upvote shitposts like this for visibility? Isn’t that the exact opposite of what it should be used for? Do you purposely upvote shitposts “for visibility?” If so, fuck you lol.

    • yokonzo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is such a flawed argument though, many of us remember when these services started coming out and the general Zeitgeist was “wow! What an amazing and interesting way to connect to each other!” There wasn’t too much public concern that our works would be sold to companies because these were just “platforms” places where you could shout out to the world about your passion.

      The idea that this was a mistake the end user should have known better about is wrong because there was no preconception that your creative ideas were at any sort of risk, AI didn’t exist and it was commonly accepted that “of course you owned this, you made it”.

      If you apply such a modern lens to the very early stages of the internet, of course it’s going to look stupid. But remember that most people at the time thought they’d be safe and wouldn’t willingly subject themselves to this kind of treatment

      • shadycomposer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t disagree with you, nor am I trying to blame people who didn’t know. I didn’t know myself either 20 years ago. I’m just stating a fact and hope people can learn these, and if they still choose one thing over the other, don’t come and cry.

    • PLAVAT🧿S@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Say the line Bart!

      If you’re not paying for the product, then you are the product.

      Also applies: no such thing as a free lunch.

    • coffeeClean@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Is Wordpress a service? It seems to be software that is apparently runs on other people’s property. So this is what I’m confused about. I write a blog that is served by a non-profit org and the software is apparently Wordpress. I don’t understand how the copyright on my work in this context would exempt Wordpress in any way.

      (edit) This article clears it up → https://lifehacker.com/tech/the-difference-between-wordpress-and-wordpresscom

  • inspxtr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    Do we know whether federated content (say from Lemmy or Mastodon) with these sites may be under the deal as well?

    • waratchess@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      They don’t need a deal with Lemmy.

      It’s an open platform, they can just scrape all the data.

      • Jack Riddle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Is that legal? When you sign onto a proprietary platform you usually sign away your rights, but with lemmy this isn’t the case, so scraping your data to use to train AI would violate copyright laws, right?

          • Jack Riddle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            They could, and we couldn’t stop them, but I think they legally couldn’t use content from other instances or even from users from other instances. Not that that will stop them, of course.

      • inspxtr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        this may make it easier tho. as in, why set up another instance when you can just buy it from a well-known player?

  • Moonrise2473
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Why would someone pay to train a LLM on Tumblr???

    At least Google paying for reddit content, would have something useful mixed with all the memes.

    But Tumblr would definitely poison the results

    • Lumidaub@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Because of the general culture and mindset. Haven’t found that anywhere else. That mindset also means they’re going to get a whole lot of poison in their datasets.