Because I consented to a comment being posted on a website to be read by people does not mean I consented to it being used to train LLMs.
For example, lots of TOS make the works of users property of the platform owners. All of that can stop being relevant if that practice becomes illegal.
People consented to put their comments publicly, they didn't consented to feeding a machine that steals their ideas. One ruling establishing that the wording on the terms is not good enough, and all of that can fall.
If you shout something in public, someone might hear you. If you shout in a locked house they won't hear you unless they break in.
If you post something publicly on the internet, then people can look at it. If you post something privately on the internet, people have to agree to your terms to view it.
That's it, that's the logic the government uses to allow website scraping.
AI companies haven't just been scraping, they've been pirating. I think it's important because people consent to put their comments on websites, but authors don't consent to have their work stolen. Mixing the two together as if they are the same is an attempt by AI companies to muddy the ethical waters a bit more than I'm comfortable with.