Technology

59436 readers

3735 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1717

Stack Overflow bans users en masse for rebelling against OpenAI partnership — users banned for deleting answers to prevent them being used to train ChatGPT (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 6 months ago by misk@sopuli.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world

431 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 22 points 6 months ago (20 children)

Instead of solely deleting content, what if authors had instead moved their content/answers to something self-owned? Can SO even claim ownership legally of the content on their site? Seems iffy in my own, ignorant take.

[–] matjoeman@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They can. It's in the TOS when you make your account. They own everything you post to the site.

[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well I suppose in that case, protesting via removal is fine IMO. I think the constructive, next-step would be to create a site where you, the user, own what you post. Does Reddit claim ownership over posts? I wonder what lemmy's "policies" are and if this would be a good grounds (here) to start building something better than what SO was doing.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

A SO alternative cannot exist if a user who posted an answer owns it. That defeats the purpose of sharing your knowledge and answering questions as it would mean the person asking the question cannot use your answer.

[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

A SO alternative cannot exist if a user who posted an answer owns it. That defeats the purpose of sharing your knowledge and answering questions as it would mean the person asking the question cannot use your answer.

Couldn't these owners dictate how their creations are used? If you don't own it, you don't even get a say.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That's the point of platforms like SO - you give away your knowledge, for free, for everyone, for any use case. If a user can restrict the use of their answers, then it makes no sense for SO to exist. It's like donating food to a food bank and saying that your food should only go to white people and not black people.

[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 2 points 6 months ago

I'm not sure I agree with your example - it's more like giving the owners of the donation the ability to choose WHO they are donating to. That means choosing not to donate to companies that might take your food donation and sell it as damaged goods for example. I wouldn't want my donation to be used that way. Thats how I see it anyway

load more comments (18 replies)