this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
46 points (94.2% liked)

Fediverse

17735 readers
19 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
deadsuperhero@lemmy.ml
wakest@lemmy.ml
46
Yet another approach on Threads (Jerry Bell) (infosec.exchange)
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by Masimatutu@mander.xyz to c/fediverse@lemmy.ml
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I continue to be squeezed by both sides of the threads situation. I am operating on the premise that people who think I’m a terrible person and this is a terrible instance for allowing any interaction with threads have left and/or blocked, those remaining seem to want to either have nothing to do with threads at all and are mainly concerned with their data, and those who want to seamlessly interact with threads. I have threads limited/silenced on Infosec.exchange, but that isn’t seamless, and it’s also not fully blocking. So, here’s my proposal: I remove the limit from threads, and run a job to domain block threads for each account. Any account who chooses can undo the block (or ask me to do it) and then they can seamlessly interact with threads, and those who want nothing to do with them get their way.

[...]

(Note: this was only intended for Infosec.exchange/.town, and fedia.social)

– @jerry@infosec.exchange

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

They can not legally just download and use what people share

Can't they? The internet is full of scrapers and reposters, and I don't think I've ever seen a company like that going down. I'm not sure what the point would be (generate a dataset? perform sentiment analysis on certain topics? streamline their tag detection system with off-platform data?), but they can, as long as they follow the relevant privacy laws ("practically no restrictions" outside of the EEA+UK+California, "anonymise before processing" everywhere else).

They would only violate copyright if they redistribute the content. Downloading and processing the content offline wouldn't really be breaking any laws, outside of a structured PII situation.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You are missing the point entirely: in order to put advertisement next to it, they of course need to copy and redistribute it.

Why do you think they haven't enabled two way federation yet? It is precisely because of the unclear legal situation regarding content sourced through federation.

And as shady as Meta is, they are an established company with a big legal department and not some web scalper operating from a 3rd world country.