Gregory's ServerBut I seriously doubt Facebook will see it this way until they are made to.
|
18 comments
See even boosts could be used to build ad platforms. There’s no way they don’t see that as exploitable value.  @spaduf @jdp23 @riomccloud @brianvastag @Mastodon Boosts could send your content to Meta servers, however what is not clear is how the data rights issues will be addressed. By default on Mastodon you own the content rights and you do not give away the right to exploit your content for these purposes. I think we’re already in some legal grey area with the concept of boosts and likes being protected. IANAL but I think it’d definitely kick around the courts for a while before we’d know for sure. @spaduf @jdp23 @riomccloud @brianvastag @Mastodon The issue is copyright to content. An analogy is book publishing. You do not give someone the right to make copies of your book and sell them when you publish your book. Same on Mastodon. Meta users do explicitly give Meta a license to their content for various purposes through Meta's Term of Service. But the argument I think that they’ll make is that boosts are not content and therefore not subject to the same protections. Not to mention they’ll only have to make the argument once caught. @spaduf @jdp23 @riomccloud @brianvastag @Mastodon It would be the underlying content that the owner retains the copyright to. Boosting is part of the service so it is an authorized use of the content. The Privacy Policy describes the service so there is a limited implied license to any such use of the content. @spaduf @jdp23 @riomccloud @brianvastag @Mastodon You seem to be doing fine. These are all valid issues.  Even if the owner retains the copyright (which they probably do, although IANAL) Meta can use it for a wide variety of purposes without violating copyright. And they have hundreds of lawyers and budget for paying billions of dollars in fines, so even if they theoretically *can't* use it, they still will if they think it's worth it. @mastodonmigration @spaduf @riomccloud @brianvastag @Mastodon @jdp23 @spaduf @riomccloud @brianvastag @Mastodon Indeed. Under no illusions about the effectiveness of any defensive measures. Never-the-less it is better to take what measures one can. Providing notice is one such measure. @mastodonmigration Thank you! I just added it to the draft privacy threat modeling post at https://privacy.thenexus.today/fediverse-threat-modeling-privacy-and-meta/ @jdp23 @spaduf @riomccloud @brianvastag Thank you. You might also want to link this Meta Specific Data Rights Limitation Notice: https://mastodon.online/@mastodonmigration/110663189973042587 It seems like a good time to provide notice that we do not consent to use of our content beyond those uses afforded by the Mastodon instance Privacy Policy. @mastodonmigration @jdp23 @riomccloud @brianvastag Had already boosted and favorited :blobcat_mlem:  > "until they are made to" That's Facebook way, alright. 🤔 🤭 For them, there are quite a lot of checkboxes to untick on app permissions: https://tilvids.com/w/3Fq67yoxjsi9mnSKG2Xbam |
@spaduf Yeah really. I'll wait to see the actual agreements. On second thought I'll wait to see what privacy lawyers have to say about the actual agreements.
Also what if Threads users follow Mastodon users who then boost posts of other Mastodon users?
@mastodonmigration this was the scenario you sketched in that very helpful post I've lost the link to.
And in terms of ads ... are we just pretending that "promoted posts" don't exist? smh.
@riomccloud @brianvastag
@spaduf Yeah really. I'll wait to see the actual agreements. On second thought I'll wait to see what privacy lawyers have to say about the actual agreements.
Also what if Threads users follow Mastodon users who then boost posts of other Mastodon users?
@mastodonmigration this was the scenario you sketched in that very helpful post I've lost the link to.