Ive seen that pixelfed and peertube have the ability to add a licence to content. I think this would be great for everyone so we can get ahead of threads and have collective bargaining power when they inevitable put our content between ads.

Heres the pixelfed duscyssion on the issue: https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed/issues/13 Here is mastadons discussion: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/20079

Im not sure if lemmy has a discussion yet i may create one later if one doesnt already exist.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago (19 children)

So, if some indy developer creates an app for the Fediverse and decides to support himself by putting ads in it rather than requiring people to pay for it, he's hooped?

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (6 children)

If they're trying to profit off of content on instances they don't have licensing to them yes, they cannot steal that content. We would want instance wide licensing that would be attached to each post that explicitly states the content cannot be used alongside ads to generate revenue. Some instances may choose not to have this licensing so their content could be used with ads, but it would prevent companies from stealing content posted by people who don't want this. The value in any social media is the user base, the cost of ad space goes up the more people use the social media, to get users you need engaging new content all the time, with the fideverse anyone can pull content and display it on their instance, some users don't want to create the content that someone else uses to make money.

[–] ethan@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Creating a paid or ad-supported client app for a website isn’t profiting off of content, it’s profiting off of the user’s desire for a better mobile experience. There’s no ‘stealing’, the developer never has access to nor purports to own any of the content themselves- it’s simply a voluntary intermediary for a user to access their own account with their own content feed.

That said, any client apps that run ads are dumb and will fail miserably. It’s awful for UX. Just so long as client apps can be monetized in other ways I think it’s fine to adopt a license that prohibits specifically ads.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

So we need something more than a ccbync to prevent ads being put next to content?

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (15 replies)