- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- fediverse@lemmy.ml
- fediverse@kbin.social
You must log in or register to comment.
Can activity pub change it’s terms to say that all crawlers that use this must be gnu open sources and all information crawled must be open to the public on gnu open sources software (no crawling to a private enterprise)?
My understanding is all the big tech companies are scared of what happened with router software (openwrt) and they don’t want to be forced to let competition be a foss community via gnu licensing.
Isn’t ActivityPub just an application protocol? To my knowledge there’s no ActivityPub inc. licensing the usage of the protocol or anything like that. A web protocol is just a series of guidelines everyone has agreed on following, you can’t attach terms and conditions to it.
Indeed. Licensing usage of something is antithetical to free software culture anyway. It would violate the Free Software Foundation’s Freedom Zero, that you should never have to accept a licence to use something. (This is why free software cannot ever have a EULA, for instance)
TIL. Never really cared about the legal aspect of FOSS for anything other than slapping a GPL license next to anything I write but that is an interesting fact.
It’s come up in interesting cases. I can’t remember which package it was, but there was one package that was distributed under the humourous “Don’t Be Evil License”, where you could “use this software for anything that’s not evil” or something like that. This technically does not qualify as free software (freedom 0 must allow anyone to use it for evil), so Red Hat (I think it was?) had to get their lawyers to contact the developer and get him to give them an exemption to the licence, just in case one of their users used it for evil.
LMAO that’s hilarious. Love it.
The thing they could do is block the servers of Meta or route to tor for anything sent to meta.
Eh, it still wouldn’t be “free software” at that point. “Free” also means freedom to send your data to Meta if you want to.
This is a good shout
I’m kinda torn here.
On the one hand, this is Meta we’re talking about. Fuck’em.
On the other, this is all public info on insecure social media. It can all be scraped by anyone who wants to anyway.
None of that is particularly the thing that worries me - Meta could be crawling Lemmy right now and getting all that information even if they weren’t planning on supporting federation, but it’s on the public web intentionally to be read, so it’s just like anyone else reading it. The only piece of information I’m surprised would get shared is IP address, and without knowing the technical reasons I’m wondering how/why they would get this and if it’s something Lemmy could fix in software.
The main thing that worries me is still if the toxic culture of Meta’s social networks floods into our communities.
Nothing is federated to Threads, they haven’t switched it on yet.
World intended to allow them to be federated, ML publicly stated that they will defederate them. Given that signups to instances are being restricted, I wanted to be sure I’m on an instance that defederates them. I also like the overall sentiment of publicly giving the finger to Zuck
Is there any way to see which communities are defederating? I’m really hoping mine are.
Sure, I wish them nothing but failure, but I’m intending to wait around and see what happens first. From what I’ve heard Threads isn’t going well for them anyway. I still worry that even if there’s mass defederation it would still poison the pool, because it would influence the culture of instances that are federated with it and isolate those that aren’t.
Would it be possible to blacklist Threads, but also whitelist specific accounts? I don’t want any more to do with Meta than I already do, but I’d also like some way of sending questions into The Last Leg.
How does Meta/Facebook get access to IP Address information of the user. Is that public in ActivityPub spec?