Ive seen that pixelfed and peertube have the ability to add a licence to content. I think this would be great for everyone so we can get ahead of threads and have collective bargaining power when they inevitable put our content between ads.
Heres the pixelfed duscyssion on the issue: https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed/issues/13 Here is mastadons discussion: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/20079
Im not sure if lemmy has a discussion yet i may create one later if one doesnt already exist.
I don’t have a particular problem with instances deciding that they want to fund themselves through advertising. When the Fediverse was developing, one of my predictions was that instances would come up with multiple different ways to fund each other including donations, subscriptions and advertising.
Do you never e-mail people with gmail or yahoo addresses?
Your welcome to licence ur content so that can happen if you’d like to. Id prefer not to support that and to have some backing against that.
The social media companies seem to think their data is valuable. If we licence it then they canot extract value from it therefore they have no reason to exert influence over the fediverse.
Sync and maybe some other apps already put ads next to posts. Ironically this post specifically had an ad next to it.
As for bargaining power, bargaining for what? Ad revenue? Are you serious? No thank you, you’re asking for reddit but worse. You’ll get ad farmers submitting garbage content overnight. I know Facebook is going to profit off my *waves hand* fucking everything. That’s the price I pay for participating in an open system. That’s the state of the internet right now. Everything gets monetized by everyone except you. If you don’t like it, disconnect. There are literally trillions of dollars against you, any action you take will only make it worse for everyone else, because these companies have the money to force judgements in their favor.
Welcome to life. It fucking sucks here.
Edit: an analogy I thought of would be this: you’re talking loudly in a small, private park that has no fence. The only thing that indicates that it’s privately owned is a little sign that says, “Property of Lemmy.world”. Anyone passing by on the street can overhear your conversation. Someone decides to set up a viewing platform on the street where they charge money for people to come and gawk at you from the viewing platform. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about doing that. There’s nothing illegal about someone taking notes on what they overheard. There’s nothing illegal about someone selling their notes either. Because they aren’t officially entering the park, there’s no TOS for them to sign, nor an Eula that binds them. Your trying to impose restrictions on someone outside of the park’s jurisdiction. Sometimes, people are successful at doing that, but generally it comes at the detriment of everyone else’s experience.
Sync and maybe some other apps already put ads next to posts. Ironically this post specifically had an ad next to it.
It would be so funny if commercial clients would then have to hide non-commercial content. So much for tearing down walls and building bridges…
This is as dumb as idea as charging for links eg Canada or fucking reposting a terms of service on your Facebook page. And you’ll just go steal some content from YouTube because it’s not stealing it’s copying 🤣
So, if some indy developer creates an app for the Fediverse and decides to support himself by putting ads in it rather than requiring people to pay for it, he’s hooped?
yeah, these people are fucking stupid.
If they want to make money off my content, they can pay me my share of their profits.
Unfortunately, unless you have a good lawyer, they’re probably just going to ignore you anyway, even if they legally can’t.
They can place ads under CCBYNC photos though. It just would mean people cant sell the photos themself not the space around the photos
They can place ads under CCBYNC photos though.
It depends. If the photographer uploads the photo to a platform, the photographer gives that platform permission to use it under the platform’s EULA. The platform cannot legally crawl the web for NC images and then make money off placing ads around them.
Do you think the following would fly in a court? “We, the Walt Disney Corporation, do not profit off the non-commercial assets used in the Avengers movie that we found on an asset store. We profit of everything around those assets. Those assets are distributed free of charge, the movie around those assets isn’t.”
Explicitly denying a list of companies, e.g. Meta for now, is likely more legally defensible and gets around the issue of indie devs (who mayhap have TOS that allow ads, and it’s the eye of the user that sees the ads, still patreon or straight up paid apps are more in keeping with the fediverse IMO). It also makes the point very specific that these assholes are unwelcome. Perhaps the EFF or someone could draft something… Trick would be to update it as new pricks enter the arena, but that doesn’t seem unachievable.
