I don't think they're making a moral argument, but pointing out the reality of the situation as it stands.

This is a problem that can only be fixed through legislation and aggressive enforcement backed by large punitive actions.

Until that happens, it's better to acknowledge and understand the reality of the situation, than to believe that a morally righteous condemnation will somehow unmake that reality.

It sucks. I agree with your philosophical stance, except for the payment for personal data, as I'd prefer a complete opt-out. However, none of that changes where we're at right now.

ITT people not recognizing that there’s a difference between comparing and equating.

People, it’s possible to make analogies to more serious situations without saying the two things are equal. The statement above is saying it’s there’s a shared mentality, not a shared level of consequence/seriousness.

A mild copyright violation based on a system designed around the constant distribution of copies of things is NOT a parable about sexual violence, people.

I feel like this extremely insensitive rape take is the fediverse's version of the Godwin Law.

You're right but...

It's the same with open source products. Companies just take it, make billions off it, give nothing back, will try the embrace, enhance , extinguish tactics, will hide any GPL licensing because of course they would...

It'll happen anyway, and you can't stop it. Like you said, girls dress to rape is bullshit. But if a girl goes in a skimpy bikini in a Bombay bus at 9pm, then you're kind of asking for something. Open source is open for everyone, that is kind of the point, it's the reason why it became so big in the first place, but it WILL be abused because there are always abusers out there

Are you seriously co.parong having your shitty Internet comments scrapped by AI to someone actually raping you? Wtf?

I would rather my content be open to the world for however it wants to use it than owned by a single company that gets to profit off aggregating and selling it.

Yeah but doesn't hubzilla (https://hubzilla.org/page/info/discover) applies a privacy layer to how its content it is distributed? The issue then lies also in how the social network gets implemented in function of its purpose, in hubzilla vs lemmy case for instance is a public board vs a social network

That doesn’t mean it’s licensed to be used in a for profit software.

Correction: it is built to make consuming users's data not easy, but more human.

What does that even mean?

WHat you are thinking of is AP, not "Fediverse", and even then that's a stretch.

Honestly, I think Fediverse is inseparable from AP (or some similar protocol). You can split hairs if you want, but the thing that makes it different from all other social media services is that it allows the content created by users on one service to be imported into a different service.

You can hope and dream that it is only services like Lemmy consuming user content from services like Mastadon, but this same protocol makes it easy for services like ChatGPT to consume the same data.

I don’t disagree. I’m just saying that so long as you’re putting content on this platform, you are powerless to stop any service from using the features of the platform in whatever way they want.

It was built for easy and open consumption of user content by other services.

One of the important features of Mastodon is that you can choose what your feed is. Everyone's feed has an algorithm determining what's in it even if it's just a simple "list the posts of everyone I've subscribed to in chronological order."

If someone else wants to see a feed of content that is curated and sorted in a different way, why get angry at them? They're not forcing you to see that feed.

For me, more specifically, the problem is they took my data and made a tool to sell it back to me without paying me for it.

I have no real issue with current ai stuff, other than you're effectively taking our stuff and want us to pay you for doing so.

If they weren't freeloading on everyone, I suspect you'd have a lot less angry people.

Consent isn't legally required if it's fair use. Whether it's fair use remains to be ruled on by the courts.