• jeffhykin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I think we can give facebook/threads the bad end of the bargin IF we have a data protections.

    You know how powerful copy-left was for open source? I think we can do the same for Lemmy servers. We can have users agree (formally) that the data on a particular server cannot be used for training llvm’s advertisements, marketing profiles, etc, and make it legally binding.

    Even if we don’t federate with them, Meta can still harvest the data so we should add these protections regardless. Maybe there is already something like this and I’m just unaware of it.

    If we do add these protections and we ensure that the largest instance (e.g. Lemmy.world) is community controlled, I think it could work well for bringing more content to Lemmy.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yep, on a public forum like this we lose very little on privacy by federating with them. What we do stand to lose is comment and post quality, but that’s trivial to fix by simply blocking threads on a personal level.

      • jeffhykin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Yeah, sorry if I’m not great at communicating. That’s exactly what I’m trying to point out when I said:

        Even if we don’t federate with them, Meta can still harvest the data so we should add these protections regardless.

      • jeffhykin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        As opposed to a facebook-controlled server being the top search result for Lemmy.

        I see why that’s confusing so I edited my comment just now