@christian
1) Embed is a great example. Apps can even implement this menu item without it being a standard feature of the Fediverse. So I embed someone else’s content on my blog post. Can I say I did this with consent? That they should have expected it? In my reasoning is it still isn’t consent if I haven’t asked for their permission. I could argue they should have expected it as a possibility, but I don’t have their explicit consent to publish their post within my decided context. Could of course still be legal or within publishing rights.
2) Also a good example about fediblocks. What is reasonable for people to expect if they hear they learn that they can block and defederate? In this case it makes sense for people to expect to be able to feel safe form the other party seeing their posts when they block. The fact that they truly aren’t safe from others viewing their posts via a web browser doesn’t mean they have consented to repurposing of their content.
The person implementing the web scraper likely understands that people intentfully block others, but decides to disregard this circumstance. Again, the tech allows it and a lot of people understand it works this way, but not everyone. Is that enough to decide that everyone has consented? My reflection: Not if there is a chance some people would say no if asked.
The other scenario is where public timelines on an instance are not in fact displayed publicly, but that’s more clear-cut. Then you actually do need to ”infiltrate” through a covert follow bot that collects posts.
Instances can also be set to not allow indexing, which of course is one of the standard practices you mention in your first post. Best case that is then describes in the instance rules, but still doesn’t protect. In that case I agree 100% with you, that when those signals are ignored, it is also more clear-cut abuse.
I guess to sum up, my stance is that I see very few cases where it doesn’t make sense to ask for permission, to confirm informed consent.
Posts in English
@christian
Gotcha. But how is consent then confirmed? How can I document consent when taking action on another person’s published content?
If we can confirm consent then yes, it is not missing. But otherwise it appears to come down to drawing assumptions about what another person intends or expects when they post their content.
My concern is that taking action on content that another person’s has posted and repurposing it for use or display in ways that the person could not be expected to intend or expect, can lead to harm that could have been avoided with proper consent.
I feel many are arguing that one should always expect online content to be able to be copied and pop up anywhere (not saying you are). I understand this sentiment. But it assumes a lot of general understanding that I don’t believe is fair for a broad population. It also disregards the need for groups of people to participate without being subjected to this consequence.
So if a person did not expect repurposing of their content, and did not approve it, at what point is it considered consent, if there is no confirmation or advisement they can become aware of before posting.
The interesting thing here is that there are likely a myriad of ways that content can be repurposed in ways that do not harm and are respectful. But that does not mean there was consent.
I’m hoping for a broader recognition that there are many things happening where consent is not present, and that there are likely ways that people get hurt because of this that is often not considered, or considered to ”not matter enough” because of the ”few numbers” of people potentially being put in harm’s way.
(The main trigger for my post was search engines being created by following people and then putting their posts in a database - posts then becoming searchable by people from instances that they had blocked)
Note, because it’s me, I’m talking about ethics rather than law, as there are many countries where there is a huge lack of protection under law, which of course is one of the dilemmas of participating online.
So when I talk about consent I refer to the act of working with the intent of non-maleficence rather than what is necessarily regulated by law in a given context.
@atomicpoet @chockenberry
Fantastic, something like this is what I’ve been hoping for!
@christian
If I follow this line of thinking I interpret your stance as being that there is no need to consider consent for using any content someone posts online for any purpose, as long as it’s not explicitly denied using a standardized declaration.
Is that interpretation correct?
@rasmus_kaj
I think that is a great example of scraping without consent. The way it would be with consent is if the post on Mastodon clearly states: ”Comments to this post will automatically be displayed as comments on the blog post as well.”
When adding posts from social media in my blog posts I tend to ask for permission. I’ve done that quite a few times over the last week without having written the blog posts yet.
Historically, a large majority say yes but a small number say no. And if they say no I do not use their post, or I refer to it anonymously without link or personally identifiable information, and with different wording.
I’ve deployed tools similar to what you describe in the past but after spending enough time recognizing the people who do not appreciate un-anticipated attention, I want to avoid any harm that I could inadvertently contribute to, emotional or otherwise.
For tools like this there is also the added risk of people publishing data about others, which would then automatically end up on the blog.
I’m not saying what your best course of action is but it’s always good to feel confident about having considered potential harm and one’s own contribution if it happens.
The ethical reasoning is what I am encouraging, not necessarily whether something is legally allowed.
@glennf @adamengst Haha, no worries. That was an extremely quick response time. Thank you.
@adamengst @glennf
Just noticed my surname is misspelled in that article. Missing a b.😊
@ivory 👍 Thanks for the response. Most important for me is really the ability to interact with Mastodon users so it won’t matter for me personally as long as everyone using Ivory can follow and engage with people using other services.. But the willingness for anyone to try out other services may of course be affected, as incentive for experimentation will be lower if people have to switch apps.
On Akkoma myself and prefer the web interface on any device.
@janboddez
Hehe, a lot to unpack here and I would love to write a longer post on this. What you are doing in each of your posts is applying ethical reasoning, which is great.
My hope is to boost awareness of unintentional harm based on re-using other people's content in ways they did not initially intend and did not approve.
So when engaging in actions that manage other people's content my ideal situation is one where ethical reasoning takes place, with the explicit goal of minimising harm. Best-case this reasoning is documented and transparent.
To an extent this is what you are doing 😊
With clients I lead them through impact mapping exercises, where impacts are often valued according to their severity, how much the contribution is, how neglected/vulnerable those affected are and how likely it is to happen.
When we don't know the answer we need to find out, from people who are affected. Which means proactive listening.
Exercises like this also create more understanding for situations where functionality has to be recalled - and that is more often then planned as a potential circumstance.
I'll try to find time to think about and address each of your examples but it will have to be after the weekend. 😊
@ivory Is it your intent to support all of ActivityPub/Fediverse and not just Mastodon?
@berkes
Hehe, a lot to unpack here and I would love to write a longer post on this. What you are doing in each of your posts is applying ethical reasoning, which is great.
My hope is to boost awareness of unintentional harm based on re-using other people's content in ways they did not initially intend and did not approve.
So when engaging in actions that manage other people's content my ideal situation is one where ethical reasoning takes place, with the explicit goal of minimising harm. Best-case this reasoning is documented and transparent.
To an extent this is what you are doing 😊
With clients I lead them through impact mapping exercises, where impacts are often valued according to their severity, how much the contribution is, how neglected/vulnerable those affected are and how likely it is to happen.
When we don't know the answer we need to find out, from people who are affected. Which means proactive listening.
Exercises like this also create more understanding for situations where functionality has to be recalled - and that is more often then planned as a potential circumstance.
I'll try to find time to think about and address each of your examples but it will have to be after the weekend. 😊
(Edit: First meant for this reply to go to @janboddez but I realised it was still relevant for both.)
@janne @troed
1. Yes, search engines apply non-consensual scraping to an extent. But it's an interesting case to reason around.
If the premise of publishing a web page is that it can be indexed - the robots.txt file being a standard - then it can be reasoned that it's possible to publish a web page with the correct code for not being indexed. It's an opt-out, yes, but it can be applied *before* actually publishing the page. The action never happens.
The difference between adding a consent and adding a non-consent could be argued as negligible in this scenario. As long as the rules of engagement are clear.
2. In pratical ethics it's great to judge one's own actions based on adherence to, or misconstruction, of intent. Though I would argue that it's dangerous to assume people want to reach "everyone" because they have public posts.
There is a difference in low and high levels of attention. Though I'm not really talking about boosts it's a good case for reflecting on responsibility based on number of followers. Does more followers imply more responsibility, for example.
Scraping of data that individuals posted in one context, for one purpose, will mean that the scraper intends to use the content in a way that the poster did not intend.
There is no consent for this use.
Scraping of personal information (including personal updates) almost always happens without consent and without compassion for individuals and their autonomy.
The fact that the information is public and available has nothing to do with consent for any use that the scraping party desires.
Whether or not that use is considered benevolent and harmless by the scraping party does not matter.
Whether or not a majority of people appear to approve of the scraping does not matter.
Whether or not there is an option to opt out (after the fact) does not matter.
Scraping without consent is one way that disenfranchised and vulnerable individuals are harmed and forced to leave online spaces that are of value to them.
@ambivalena
Grattis! 😊
@b_cavello Great thread. You should put that in a blog post :)
@energisch_ Thanks, that was my takeaway in the end as well :)
@ForeignSubstance My thinking is that the license agreement doesn’t even matter. Expecting deletion of data, or even assuming that it can confidently be done, is the fallacy.
Thinking I now want to visit a hard drive destruction site to see how they do it. 😅
@Robert_R_Freitag_II Yes, I’ve always been fascinated by how willing people are to delude themselves if there’s a chance of quick financial gain, however unethical, or absurd, the premise may be.
Twenty years ago i applied for a job as a web strategist. The ad was an incredibly perfect fit for me. Despite my confidence I wasn’t even called to an interview.
I questioned this in an email and asked if they perhaps would reconsider. Whereupon the manager asked that my cv and application be returned to me.
This was all through email, so the idea they thought they could ”return” my application was hilarious to me. They only created yet another copy.
Today I see people making the same logical errors with regards to moving data.
When you request an archive or move data out of your cloud drive and then close your account with a provider, you haven’t ”taken back” your data.
You have to expect your data to still be stored with them in many backups. You’ve just created yet another copy,
This is the nature of digital.