I feel like there are many devs out there who expose a lot of personal details and opinions all over the web. Maybe it’s just me, but when starting out with the internet I tried my best to separate my personal details (name, age, sex, country, ethnicity, family ties, relationship status,…) from usernames in public.

Seeing devs do it willingly and voice opinions on divisive or sensitive topics kind of messes with me. Aren’t y’all afraid of missing out on job opportunities if someone reads your opinions, code, or other stuff tied to your personal accounts? Or letting anybody (maybe family, friends, acquaintances, …) in on your personal life, mindset, opinions and other personal information?

Anti Commercial-AI license

  • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    Can we please stop with the license crap attached to posts? It’s annoying and also pointless.

    • mesamune@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      I heard that there is a person making a bot to pull all linked comments/posts to the Anti AI license stuff as a joke. To train a LLM and create more comments.

      This is a strange world.

    • recursive_recursion [they/them]@programming.devEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      I mean tbh they’re free to do as they wish as long as they’re abiding by our TOS and guidelines

      While adding a CC license on a comment is questionable on the aspect of viability, it doesn’t violate any of our community rules

      Please do not gate keep unless there you see justification for the prevention of something

      • Kissaki@programming.devEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        Is it gatekeeping if they voice their disapproval? Is any form of disapproval gatekeeping? Where is the line?

        They didn’t ask them to stop posting or participating. Wouldn’t that be the line where it crosses to gatekeeping?

        They asked them not to attach the CC notice. It didn’t address their content.

      • 0x0@programming.dev
        0·
        6 months ago

        I guess the flipside of not being so public is that you get to be an asshole behind a keyboard, eh?

        • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
          0·
          6 months ago

          If you wish to relinquish your hope of licensed comments, you may therefore make personal attacks again. But, please direct them all at me, so as not to hurt others’ feelings.

        • onlinepersona@programming.devOP
          0·
          6 months ago

          My bad.

          I’m not trying to make a case for the licence. I’m just adding it to my comments yet people keep feeling it necessary to harass me about it. The list of people I’ve blocked for mocking me about it has become quite long. Should I start reporting them?

          Anti Commercial-AI license

          • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
            0·
            6 months ago

            Why are you adding it? It’s not valid. You don’t own the content you post online anymore. They’re copies of your original content, to which you’ve already granted whatever license the website uses. You can’t re-license those particular copies, it’s out of your hands.

            • Kissaki@programming.devEnglish
              0·
              6 months ago

              The poster licensing to the platform is not the same as licensing to the public.

              This instance programming.dev ToS declares:

              2.2. By submitting, posting, or displaying user content on our services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, distribute, and display such user content.

              Distribution and displaying with attribution follows CC BY and SA. NC currently probably does - but may or may not (currently accepts donations).

              The ToS only defines the license to distribute and display. It does not define how users and consumers of that distribution may or may not use the content.

              So from this instance alone, there could be an argument of “the comment defines how it may be used”.

              But I’m not sure that holds given that federated distribution goes to other instances with different terms. For those that don’t define how content may be consumed, it may be a reasonable argument. For those that define it in a conflicting manner, the ToS may override the content CC claim. Given the federated, distributed nature, given that you can reasonably expect such a conflict, there’s a question of whether it holds in the first place if you can expect conflict invalidating it.

              Either way, it’s a convoluted mess, and incredibly noisy. Lemmy content has a language attribute. If there’s a need for a license, it should be a metadata attribute in the same manner.

          • recursive_recursion [they/them]@programming.devEnglish
            0·
            6 months ago

            hmm

            realistically what would happen for those reports is that warnings would be given,

            • after that it would mainly depend on the reported user in question

            I have a suggestion for addressing the sources of harassment
            I’d like to point out a couple of main concerns:

            • you might want to [figure out/explain to the public]:
              • how and why adding the CC license would protect your comments/posts from LLM data collection
            • when being harassed or intimidated, try not to engage/reciprocate with rage or hate [MadMax_That’s_bait.gif],
              • if you do it’ll make you less trustworthy to outsiders peering in,
                • this I learned painfully from experience
            • try to ask questions as it can help you learn truths of every situation,
              • and typically the path to truth can help you figure out solutions to problems
      • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        I should hope each instance has a provision for posters to grant it an irrevocable, perpetual license to what they post. All instances should. Federation should also have clear terms.