- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai@lemmy.world
The admin of the Mastodon instance cyberspace.social just received an AI powered notice to delete the parody account @microsoft@lea.pet
You must log in or # to comment.
They don’t really understand their user base either
Look ma, my instance is being threatened! Proud to be on the instance of Mastodon CEO 🥹
Ok but fr, MS please don’t shut down cyberplace.social I just switched to there like a few months ago.
let them sue, parody is fair use. get that bag king
AI putting copyright troll lawyers out of jobs? Best use I’ve heard of yet.
this is why niche stuff on fedi is so funny sometimes. especially when a corporate entity tried to approach it, in the most corporate way lol.
I feel like this is going to become a problem with federation in the future. A Mastodon instance is hosting content outside of its control that may or may not comply with its internal policies or local law. Is that instance protected legally? Likely not.
It would likely be treated the same way as auto forwarding an email would be treated.
I don’t know. You may be generally already protected to some degrees by existing laws for users interacting with your site. This time it’s just users interacting with your site via another server. If you defederate from bad instances and have a good DMCA system, you might be okay.
Although, this type of thing could be one of those things that’ll take a court case or updated legislation to solve.
AT proto’s PDS architecture does solve that 👀
Edit: I do want to say that after reading this blog post I have become a bit more lenient on ATProto. It seemed rather neutral and objective and found several upsides that I think are worth taking a look at.
Has BlueSky implemented federation yet?
No, but if it did you could control where your data lived, because people do host their own PDS iirc for bluesky.
So, here’s what I would do. I would comply (you should be able to delete the local instance of that account). But I’d also reply pointing out that it’s a mirror of the real account hosted at lea.pet and their real beef is with them, and should that user interact with or generate content pushed to you, the local copy would be re-created.
Keep a copy of the email you send (because it’s highly likely a human doesn’t monitor that mailbox) and then move on with your life. If a real person then wants to complain you can just forward the email you sent and tell them the same still applies.
It’s automated and the email indicates as such.
Why comply? As far as I’m aware there’s no legal obligation to do so. They think they can just ask for things and get them. Fuck them.
Well, legally there’s no reason to comply. At the same time I personally have no skin in the game and deleting the account locally won’t do much (unless you purge their content too).
Sure, but why even do that minor thing for them? Just ignore it like it deserves.
So, then, according to corpo logic, you’ve setup a system that automatically repeatedly breaks the law (copyright , maybe? Ianal).
And if the liability is on you for hosting a federation service with no control over the content and you are accountable for the replicated content, then it is effectively the end of federation. Again, not a lawyer but given how much the law favors corps over individual rights in the US it seems like it would track.
I’ve said this before. The UK online safety act if they enforce it hard against fediverse instances, it will be the end of federation, for UK users without a VPN at least. Because it puts too much on the shoulders of small site operators.
In this case though, the exception most countries have for site operators to avoid being responsible for their user’s posts is usually reliant on action being taken when content on your site is reported to you. There isn’t really an exception for saying “Umm, wasn’t from my site mate. Go follow the trail and get the original guy”. The argument will be, the site you control has the content, remove it.
In the UK in the 1990s there was a court case [1] that might even form the part of the case law behind the publisher exception. In that case the claimant stated that the ISP was alerted to forged usenet articles (usenet was pretty much a good analogue for modern federated content) that he believed defamed him. They did not remove the articles (presumably because they did not originate on their usenet server, by their users I am not sure). He sued them and the court ruled in his favour. There’s more nuance, but the take away is pretty much what we got in the law created later.
Since then we have enacted the Defamation Act 2013 [2], which has section 5 that gives SOME exemption to operators of websites that allow posts by third parties (that pretty much covers the fediverse). That makes it clear that if the claimant cannot identify the user (which would be the case for 99% of threadiverse users), and if you are informed about the content and do not take action, then you may be held accountable for the defamation. Now that just means that if they tell you X post is defamatory or should be removed for another legal reason, if you refuse to do so in a reasonable time period, then you can be held responsible and treated as the publisher of that message. So if it were to breach some law, they could sue you for it as if you posted it yourself. Which is kinda why I’d say just remove it if there’s any doubt at all. I’m not a legal expert, but that’s how I read the act.
I’m not sure how it works elsewhere. I live in the UK. But generally the rules are somewhat similar.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_Internet_Service [2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/5
Microsoft is at this point made up entirely of technically inept people running fraudulent mechanical Turks.
After forced to switch to Microsoft teams, I became their PM and developers are alien origin.
Like, some of the logic doesn’t make any human sense. Like, LLM slop would’ve done better.
Microsoft is such a horrid company.
The instance rules state;
3 . No impersonation of a person or a brand. Even parodies.
6 . Each username on here should be a person, not a brand or corporation - and that person must be you, no impersonation.
Now I’m not coming to the defense of a corporation because fuck corps but wouldn’t this account violate those rules? Microsoft is a (shitty) brand and this is a parody of that.
I might be wrong but thats how I would interpret those two rules.
And again fuck microsoft, even if it does violate the instance rules it should be left alone just to piss of a shitty corp.
Edit: As TherapyGary pointed out, the instance they are on has no rule pertaining to parody accounts, My bad.
I believe the Microsoft account is hosted on Lea.pet, which doesn’t have those rules
Mrrrrp :3
don’t harass people if there isn’t a valid reason for doing that
what a nothing rule lol, every harasser believes they are justified
This rule is my favorite lol
I like rule 8
could be a rule break of number 9
are we sure on the English translation?
@Una@europe.pub pls translate
“Reject humanity emprace meow meow mrrrp :3”
Ah I see, thanks ☺ Good kitty
meow meow :3
Poor Ubuntu.
Some might argue it requires a terminal level of brain worms to understand what is being said with rule 8. But I for one find beauty in this exactly level and flavor of petty, and I come to the fediverse for it.
What does DNI mean?
Do Not Interact (with us) lol
:D
Also, what’s a valid reason for harassment?
Presumably using Ubuntu is one of them lol
Fair point, I didn’t know those rules weren’t on lea.pet. That’s on me I should have checked, my bad.
Quick, everyone make a million parody accounts to troll microsoft harder.
deleted by creator
6 . Each username on here should be a person, not a brand or corporation - and that person must be you, no impersonation.
“I’m not a businessman, I’m a business, man!”
-Jay-Z regretting his words
You’re making the same mistake Microsoft made
Stupid rules deserve breaking.
:D
Not that I have any sympathy for them but technically speaking, can we say “Microsoft does X” when it was just a “brand protection LLM”?
For sure they chose it to be an outward connection but are we really now stating that an LLM can represent a company? I feel like that’s both “you are stupid for using LLMs that way” and empowering LLMs at the same timeThey are the ones who configured the tool to be used this way. Yes, Microsoft did that.
You’re always responsible for the actions of those that you choose to represent you. Regardless of how stupid they may be.
The phrasing is really weird too. Like I would understand if they were asserting their trademark, but saying it’s an account they’ve lost access to?
They don’t even say they lost access. Lol they just say delete it. Fuck these assholes.
They say they do not have access to it.
Yeah. I don’t have access to it either. What does that mean? Of course they don’t have access to it. It’s not their account.
enf.microsoft
Do they know what enf means on the internet?
…yet.
Microsoft doesn’t understand parody
When did they understand anything? Fuck MS
$followers++
