You could ask a lawyer, I suppose. But the basic gist of this is "we don't know what we might need to do with this data in the future, so we put 'we can do anything with this data' into the ToS so that we know that if the need arises we won't find ourselves unable to do what we need to do with it." Any website that doesn't do this could find itself unable to implement new features or comply with new laws they didn't think of when crafting the original ToS.
At the very minimum a ToS needs to have some way to update and apply retroactively to old data, which ends up being "we can do anything with this data" with extra steps.
A user's data still belongs to the user when they post it on sites like Reddit and such, too. The ToS doesn't take ownership away from them, at least not in any case that I've seen. It just gives the site the license to use it as well.
If it makes you feel better, the thing that annoys me most is not so much that this is happening but more how everybody is suddenly surprised by it and complaining about it. The data-harvesting itself doesn't really harm anyone.
I'm just venting, really. I know it's not going to make a real difference.
I suppose if you go waaaay back it was different, true. Back in the days of Usenet (as a discussion forum rather than as the piracy filesharing system it's mostly used for nowadays) there weren't these sorts of ToS on it and everything got freely archived in numerous different places because that's just how it was. It was the first Fediverse, I suppose.
The ironic thing is that kbin.social's ToS has no "ownership" stuff in it either. For now, at least, the new ActivityPub-based Fediverse is in the same position that Usenet was - I assume a lot of the other instances also don't bother with much of a ToS and the posts get shared around beyond any one instance's control anyway. So maybe this grumpy old-timer may get to see a bit of the good old days return, for a little while. That'll be nice.
Well, a large part of my frustration stems from the "I've seen this for decades" part - longer than many of the people who are now raising a ruckus have been alive. So IMO it's always been this way and the "social contract we've adapted to" is "the social contract that we imagined existed despite there being ample evidence there was no such thing." I'm so tired of the surprised-pikachu reactions.
Combined with the selfish "wait a minute, the stuff I gave away for fun is worth money to someone else now? I want money too! Or I'm going to destroy my stuff so that nobody gets any value out of it!" Reactions, I find myself bizarrely ambivalent and not exactly on the side of the common man vs. the big evil corporations this time.
I wouldn't really trust that promise, frankly. I just checked their terms of service and it has the usual clause:
You must own all rights, title, and interest, including all intellectual property rights, in and to, the User Content you make available on the Services. ASSC requires licenses from you for that User Content to operate the Services. By posting User Content on the Services, you grant ASSC a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to use, reproduce, distribute, perform, publicly display or prepare derivative works of your User Content.
Which isn't really surprising, it's standard boilerplate for a reason. They don't want to be caught in a situation where they can't function legally any more. They say they won't sell the company or your data, and they might even believe that right now, but who knows what the future might bring? They have the ability to do so if the circumstances arise.
Hardly. They earn money by being paid by their users, but they can earn more money by being paid by their users and also selling their users' data. The goal is more money, so it makes sense for them to do that. It's not crazy.
License. By uploading or sharing Content, you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, distribute, adapt, publicly display, and publish the Content solely for the purpose of providing and improving our products and Services and promoting your website. This license also allows us to make any publicly-posted Content available to select third parties (through Firehose, for example) so that these third parties can analyze and distribute (but not publicly display) the Content through their services.
Emphasis added. They told you what they could do with the content you gave them, you just didn't listen.
I'm sorry if I'm coming across harsh here, but I'm seeing this same error being made over and over again. It's being made frequently right now thanks to the big shakeups happening in social media and the sudden rise of AI, but I've seen it sporadically over the decades that I've been online. So it bears driving home:
If you are about to give your content to a website, check their terms of service before you do to see if you're willing to agree to their terms, and if you don't agree to their terms then don't give your content to a website. It's true that some ToS clauses may not be legally enforceable, but are you willing to fight that in court? If you didn't consider your content valuable enough to spend the time checking the ToS when you posted it, that's not WordPress's fault.
If you give someone something and they later find a way to make the thing you gave them valuable, it's too late. You gave it to them. They don't owe you a "cut." Check the terms of service.
Are you serious? We're speaking in the Fediverse right now. It's notable in its difference. Though instances have their own TOSes, so it'd be pretty trivial to set one up to harvest content for AI training as well.
I'd be very interested in those results too, though I'd want everyone to bear in mind the possibility that the brain could have many different "masculine" and "feminine" attributes that could be present in all sorts of mixtures when you range afield from whatever statistical clusterings there might be. I wouldn't want to see a situation where a transgender person is denied care because an AI "read" them as cisgender.
In another comment in this thread I mentioned how men and women have different average heights, that would be a good analogy. There are short men and tall women, so you shouldn't rely on just that.
Indeed. I frequently use LLMs as brainstorming buddies while working on creative things, like RPG adventure planning and character creation. I want the AI to come up with new and unexpected things that never existed before.
If I have need of the AI to account for "ground truths" then I use things like retrieval-augmented generation or database plugins that inject that stuff into the context.
They're giving you services in exchange for your contents.
Does nobody even think about TOS any more? You don't have to read any specific one, just realize the basic universal truth that no website is going to accept your contents without some kind of legal protection that allows them to use that content.
I'd say it's how the Imperium swallowed up and destroyed a number of civilizations that had separated from them that had been developing in much more progressive, prosperous ways. The Olamic Quietude and the Interex come to mind as examples. They showed that humanity didn't have to go down the terrible path they've ended up on.
Or, going farther back to look for a single "worst thing" that's had the greatest awful knock-on effects, I'd say that'd be the Old Ones' refusal to grant any aid to the Necrontyr when they asked for it. That one selfish act sparked off the War in Heaven, created the Chaos Gods, and everything that followed.
If you can't find the books available through legal channels in your country, you might want to consider looking for them on the high seas. !piracy is a good resource for that sort of thing.
It's interesting when I see headlines start popping up identifying particular individual billionaires as the owners of companies that have done something bad. Usually it's just the company itself that gets called out, since investors usually have little direct control over stuff like this.
You could ask a lawyer, I suppose. But the basic gist of this is "we don't know what we might need to do with this data in the future, so we put 'we can do anything with this data' into the ToS so that we know that if the need arises we won't find ourselves unable to do what we need to do with it." Any website that doesn't do this could find itself unable to implement new features or comply with new laws they didn't think of when crafting the original ToS.
At the very minimum a ToS needs to have some way to update and apply retroactively to old data, which ends up being "we can do anything with this data" with extra steps.