You cannot expect people to retroactively consent to a thing the existence of which they were not even aware of when they gave consent for some limited OTHER use.
Besides, it's just rude to do things for which there was no consent in general, no matter whether it is AI or anything else. No consent is no consent.
Your profile says you were "Senior Director of Monetization at Reddit". Considering all the outrage that company has caused with its users as well (redesign cough cough), perhaps you should do some soul seeking to figure out whether your values are aligned with common societal morals.
Or in other words: How many more people will you make angry until you realize that maybe you're the baddie?
So, surely, you can't change ToS retroactively and expect that any of it applies?
By adding that they can train AI they are trying to get out of a future lawsuit that may happen if the courts require consent for training (current anyone can train on anything).
Your right to sue them for using the data they hold might be lost if you continue to use after the term change.
If they asked for your car and you refused they could stop service but they can't take your car.
They can't change payment terms from the past and sue for them. But if they change the tos to say it costs more now your next bill will go up. If they say they can use your data now that they hold and you have an active account they could take that as an acceptance that past/future can be used to train ai.
A better example might be a right given. For a year you could download photos for AI training. Today they forbid that for all future and past posted photos. Anything downloaded before the date can be legally used to train.
Ask yourself whether that would be a place worth living in, or rather a hellscape.
https://youtu.be/mH3La3RJdNA?si=qIojw1j5NkH0pBCj
... cause that seems like a pretty kickin' party to me.
Oh, wait, there's nothing legal about some of what goes on at those concerts. So, not even that level of fun. Gotcha.
A poor, or even no, moral compass.
I'd lean as far out of the windows to speculate that what has often been said about people in positions of power applies here:
Those positions attract people who are completely unable to perceive empathy, and who act solely out of the desire for power and narcissism.
It's a shame, you cause so much harm for society - and you probably are unable to even perceive the harm you're causing because your brain is just not wired to be capable of empathy.
If you want to do the world a favor, go read up what a psychopath is, and by that I do NOT mean to insult you, but rather the actual medical term "psychopath".
Ask yourself whether it applies to you, and learn to protect society from yourself if it does.
Large numbers of people report seeing a bug. Having them all be liars seems rather unlikely.
I will note that we've narrowed the claim from "you're free to delete your content" to "If you live in some countries you're very likely to be able to delete your content", which I agree is probably true.
Europeans seem to believe things like GDPR apply to the entire world. They don't.
If your company has no physical presence within the EU - ignore EU laws as much as you want. There is nothing they can do about it.
Keep in mind that search engines and other third parties may still retain copies of your public information, like your profile information and public Tweets, even after you have deleted the information from our services or deactivated your account.
Looking online I can't find any recent information.
Basically, given the way Musk has been ignoring other regulations and/or not paying for things, I'm wondering if he even cares about GDPR. And if he doesn't care and shuts down any legal European presence, then does it matter?
(Of course if the Ireland office is still active and receiving lots of European advertiser revenue, then of course the GDPR has teeth.)
Shutting that office down and safely ignoring the GDPR is probably a valid concession for a US-based business built around data collection.
It's not like EU users will stop or be blocked from using X anyway.
Years ago, "dark triad incarnate" was checked by lack of nearly as established a position* and a longer timeline over which to grow and consolidate wealth and power (which does require time and attention).
He's past 50 now, and started transitioning into his own "late Putin phase" (substitute your own 'favorite megalomaniac' at will) quite aggressively in the past 5 years (especially). Now the game is using that wealth and power for a kind of ultimate "spoiled child fantasy camp".
Regardless of how directly any of them channel the childishness of the archetype, the traits are always there - "I'm special", "your (parent-style) 'rules' don't apply to me"**, "I will get my way", etc. It's the whole point, and the motivation that people who don't think this way miss. The motivation that makes the behavior make at least some sense.
Musk is one of the real extreme examples in terms of how transparent the behavior is - whenever he does something that seems hard to explain, ask yourself how the situation might look "in a sandbox". Seriously. This may sound like typical rhetoric, but I'm serious: try it. Twitter is a perfect example - "if I can't have it my way, then I'll make sure no one can have it" ...
... and, just like in the analogy, there are layers of goals. I.e., it's also good if while we (may ultimately) destroy "the sandbox", we can use it to harm those we don't like who've been playing in it. Either directly (e.g., firing employees of Twitter), or in various indirect ways (reporting "troublesome users" to their authoritarian governments [when applicable], etc.).
* Specifically, still needing something from others here and there - most recently and likely the final example: funding for Twitter deal
** People who think this way can't help 'telegraphing' - it's one way they identify members of their own flock, in part. "Nanny state", "snowflake", etc.
"Snowflake" has got to be a personal favorite. Every time someone uses that one, I know I'm going to need a WHINE break after a few sentences... https://youtu.be/tl4VD8uvgec?si=H2MadAVDduLfolfS&t=1m17s
Realistically, a company is only obligated to pay the fine if they have a physical presence within the EU, and care to keep that presence.
For some companies, the calculus says pay the fines and cooperate with EU laws.
But for most companies, they can and do safely ignore GDPR and other EU laws. EU laws do not apply outside the EU... despite what many Europeans want to believe.
You’re right but when did you meet Europeans who said that a company selling in India has to respect GDPR? You only need to apply EU regulations if you serve EU citizens, or you get either fined or blocked
Also, could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing the guidelines and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Well for a lot of us humans, ownership is not a stopper for conversations about ethics in technology.
> insufferable whiner
I don't think this is a proportionate response to a convo about ethics in tech.
The ethical discussion is kind of the entire point. We all know what the law is.
Source?
> he really has been screwing up bad, and in ways that are indefensible by anyone with common sense.
Examples?
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. You may not owe $CelebrityBillionaire better but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
If you want to keep your thoughts private, then maybe don’t post them publicly?
If WhatsApp or another private messaging app started doing this, I’d be right there with the people calling that absolutely unacceptable.
But I’m not surprised at all that Twitter is doing this, and I don’t know how anybody even remotely tech savvy could be.
This seems so critical to a functioning society that one would have thought it would have been considered in the Constitution. Oh well!
But by agreeing to the terms of use, Twitter retains certain rights over what you post on the platform.
If that is not acceptable, then don’t use Twitter. If you think your thoughts are too valuable for Twitter to use, then write them into a book or blog or some other venue where your intellectual property can be protected.
I do not think there are any violations of intellectual property law given that there is surely a waiver of ownership of posts in the TOS.
I, of course, do not have the kind of free time required to do something like engage with Twitter, and accordingly I have no account, cannot post, and have not agreed to the TOS.
I think you have misconstrued my post, but that’s ok.
>Senior Director of Monetization at Reddit
You of all people should know that "free to" and "should" and consent by default is perfectly legal. And yet, it's also gross and slimy. So I guess I'm not at all surprised to find out you're a monetization person.
Gross.
the data landscape is ever-evolving, and what was acceptable or even conceivable years ago may not be the same today.
companies should not only be transparent but also dynamically update users on how their data is being used and offer an option to opt-out.
ignoring this not only impacts individual users but also has broader societal implications.
consent fatigue is real; expecting users to keep track and delete their accounts across numerous platforms is neither practical nor ethical.
also, cancelling your account or laboriously deleting all of your content doesn't necessarily guarantee that all your data will be deleted on the backend... did you think your comment through at all?
Corporations have more power in our government than individuals. They have a better understanding and coordination. Acting like a public forum owned by a company is immune from criticism because it's a private company is sweeping so much under the rug.
I imagine you wouldn't be where you are in life if you didn't believe such things, though.
Also, it's pretty obvious that everyone was training on Twitter data already before they cracked down on scraping. It is, after all, a public forum.