Post #3449013

2026-06-28 11:32 UTC

I think I need to go into this some more. If you release a book, and I buy the book, I am allowed to do anything I want with that book other than make copies and distribute them. That includes: - Using the information is harmful ways the author didn't intend - Burning the book - Using the book as material to write a totally different book with the TM filed off - Using the book as source for my Erotic Fan Fiction - Doing linguistic analysis on the book - Anything else Telling me afterwards that I'm not is a consent violation. Telling me afterwards that I signed a contract without realizing it that makes me unable to do these things is a consent violation. Because the book existed within a sociolegal framework which afforded a set of rights that the the author, distributor, and purchaser could all expect. But more importantly, attempts to force post-market behavior on an item through anti-Right-To-Repair contracts, anti-ai advocacy, or changing the laws are all attempts to have property rights usurp rights of possession. In fact, unsurprisingly, property rights have increasingly been favored over rights to possession.

Replies (1)

@AeonCypher@lgbtqia.space 2026-06-28 13:19

Now, I can't speak to details of the current kerfluffel. I can speak to the comments made about it. So, ActivityPub is a sociotechnical system whose obligations are defined by the affordances allowed as part of the ActivityPub API. The only reasonable expectation you have, unless you have a very tight knit server that's established its own norms, is that anyone engaging with your content will engage with it via the ActivityPub API, and some general Mastadon cultural norms. If you create Fediverse content and distribute it, it is very much like distributing a book. So long as the person follows the API and doesn't: - Redistribute the content in a way that violates the API - Impersonate you - Share a private message - Make and distribute copies outside of the API - Etc... Then the person is entitled to do whatever they want with the content. The API is the contractual relationship. A relay bot, typically, is only acting within the confines of the API, and usually following Mastadon conventions. So, the relay can't be claimed to be "violating consent". Again, I don't know details of the initial incident, and I can't speak to it, but people were absolutely making the claim that Relay's are consent violations unless they are opt-in. They aren't and that's not how ActivityPub works. In order for that to be the case it would require that you restrict sharing of your content according to someone's relationship with you.

Open ##3449012