@abucci@anthony.buc.ci To be fair, it was already codified there. What is more interesting (to me) is how they’re using a privacy policy (binding their users) in an attempt to get implicit licensing over materials out of the scope of those services, both from their users and others (or of authors unknown). Not that it matters much, I bet they’d argue such license is unneeded, but the fact that they decided to have that wording there makes me curious about the legal basis of such clause. Yes, I know Goggle had an extensive and capable legal team, but I’d still love seeing a legal analysis of the applicability of that under various jurisdictions.

⤋ Read More

@marado@twtxt.net It can’t possibly be defensible, which to me always signals an attempt at a power grab. They never explicitly said “we will use anything we scrape from the web to train our AI” before–that’s new. There is growing pushback against that practice, with numerous legal cases winding through the legal system right now. Some day those cases will be heard and decided on by judges. So they’re trying to get out ahead of that, in my opinion, and cement their claims to this data before there’s a precedent set.

⤋ Read More

@marado@twtxt.net It’s very different. Language models are part if traditional search engines and translation engines. The new policy mentions Cloud AI abd Bard specifically. This is a weird change and probably a good preemptive move as I said previously. I’m not sure why you’re downplaying it

⤋ Read More

Participate

Login to join in on this yarn.