AI scrapers:
Mastodon updates terms of service to ban AI model training on user data
Submitted 5 weeks ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to fediverse@lemmy.world
https://www.neowin.net/news/mastodon-updates-terms-of-service-to-ban-ai-model-training-on-user-data/
Comments
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
Fizz@lemmy.nz 5 weeks ago
Yeah this will do absolutely nothing.
Cris_Color@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I agree, but I’m glad they did it anyway.
Fizz@lemmy.nz 5 weeks ago
Fair, there is no reason not to.
SmolSteely@lemmynsfw.com 5 weeks ago
It does provide for the possibility of future legal action. This should have been done a year or two ago
drmoose@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
No it doesn’t because all mastodon data is public and does not require ToS agreement to be collected.
Mastodon could only argue damages but that would be impossible to litigate in any extent due to decentralized and free nature of Mastodon and Fediverse.
This is a good thing. Mastodon shouldn’t control anything related to the legality of data flowing in the fediverse - that’s the entire point.
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
It potentially gives them grounds for a lawsuit. Probably not but potenrially. There’s no reason not to explicitly deny permission. They have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 5 weeks ago
Gives them legal standing against scraping for if ot is needed in the future.
cmgvd3lw@discuss.tchncs.de 5 weeks ago
Why?
anothermember@feddit.uk 5 weeks ago
That’s a really misleading headline; a Mastodon instance has done this, Mastodon as a whole can’t do this because it’s free software, it can be used for any purpose.
froufox@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 weeks ago
I’m wondering, is it possible to include that restriction in public license for the software mastodon?
anothermember@feddit.uk 5 weeks ago
It wouldn’t be a free software licence by the FSF definition (rule zero). Of interest the FSF rejects the original JSON licence because it contains the clause “The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.” Since Mastodon uses AGPL, it wouldn’t be compatible.
rumba@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
Wait, they changed the TOS on a site to say that you can’t scrape it, when the entirety of the site is available without agreeing to the TOS?
Ascend910@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
bizza@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
Just like when mastodon.social condemned Meta for their horrible moderation decisions and inability to act properly in the interest of its users, and said that the instance would be cutting ties/not federating with Threads, they kept on federating like nothing happened.
I don’t believe anything coming out of mastodon.social unless I can see action being taken with my own two eyes.
Also, blocking scrapers is very easy, and it has nothing to do with a robots.txt (which they ignore).
lazynooblet@lazysoci.al 5 weeks ago
How is blocking scrapers easy?
This instance receives 500+ IPs with differing user agents all connecting at once but keeping within rate limits by distribution of bots.
The only way I know it’s a scraper is if they do something dumb like using “google.com” as the referrer for every request or by eyeballing the logs and noticing multiple entries from the same /12.
rumba@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
Exactly this, you can only stop scrapers that play by the rules.
Each one of those books powering GPT had like protection on them already.
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
blocking scrapers is very easy
The entirety of the internet disagrees.
andypiper@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
and said that the instance would be cutting ties/not federating with Threads,
Can you please show exactly there this was said?
D06M4@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
This was one of the few ToS updates I was actually glad to read. ToS changes usually mean a company is slowly rephrasing them to fuck us over.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
I wonder how does that work with federation.
If a second instance does not have that restriction, is there any “legal” effect on the federated content?
Suavevillain@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
It is better than nothing even if it is hard to enforce.
mintiefresh@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
Well done Mastodon.social.
Even if it may do much, it’s still better than not doing it.
Cocopanda@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Looks like I’m joining Mastodon officially.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 5 weeks ago
It’s honestly not bad, definitely the most mature fediverse service
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
I will create a masto instance where this is mandatory to counter balance
papigkos@lemmy.wtf 5 weeks ago
Failing to train an AI model using your posts as part of the training data within 7 days of posting will result in a permanent ban.
Phegan@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
W
RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com 5 weeks ago
Terms of Service are a joke and not legally binding. This is just a useless feel good motion.
Steven_T_Baxter@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I don’t mind training AI to give everyone smarter answers. It just seems the more civic, community minded, thing to do. BUT, what I want is a % of the revenue they make selling my metadata, and a list of who they sold it to.
it_depends_man@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Mastodon dot SOCIAL did, the big public instance. Mastodon the software doesn’t have these restrictions.
Scrollone@feddit.it 5 weeks ago
It wouldn’t even make sense for the Mastodon software to have such a restriction… The article title is misleading.