#PRIVACY POLICY

[itsnotiss]

Anyone who follows me on here with a Twitter/X account:

In case you haven't heard, the Twitter Privacy Policy is changing on September 29th. The new policy states that any public content uploaded there will be used to train AI models. This, in addition to the overarching content policy which gives Twitter the right to "use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish and display" any content published on the platform without permission or creator compensation, means that any original content on there could potentially be used to generate AI content for use on the platform, without the original creator's consent.

If you publish original content on Twitter (especially art) and you don't like or agree with the policy update, now may be the time to review the changes for yourself and if necessary take things down before the policy update is published.

Edit: I wanna offer a brief apology for the original post, my wording was a bit unclear and may have drawn people to the wrong assumptions! I have changed the original post a bit now to hopefully be a more accurate reflection of the situation.

Let me just clarify some things since I certainly don't wanna fearmonger and also I feel like some people may take this more seriously than it actually is!:

The part of the privacy policy I mentioned regarding "use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish and display" is included in the policies of every social media site nowadays. That part on its own is not scary, as they have to include that in order to show your content to other users and have it published outside of the site (ie. embedding on other sites, news articles).

The scenario I mentioned is pretty unlikely to happen, I highly doubt the site will suddenly start stealing art or other consent and use it to pump stuff out all over the web without consent or compensation. I simply mentioned it because the fact that the data is being used to train AI models means that stuff on there may end up being used as references for it at some point, and that could then lead to the scenario I mentioned where peoples content becomes the food for new AI content. I don't know myself how likely that is for definite, but I know many people still don't trust the training of AI, which is why I feel it is important to mention.

I cannot offer professional or foolproof advice to people on the platform who have posted content before, I'm just some guy! I don't wanna make people freak out or anything. If you have content already on the site, chances are its probably already floating around somewhere you wouldn't want it. That's, unfortunately, the reality of the internet. You don't have to take down everything you've ever posted or delete your accounts, however I wouldn't recommend posting new content on the site if you are uncomfortable with the changes.

THIS POST WAS MADE FOR AWARENESS ONLY!! I AM NOT SUGGESTING WHAT YOU SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT DO, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE!! /lh

TL;DR: I worded the original post slightly poorly, for clarification the policy being changed to allow for AI training doesn't automatically mean that all your creations will be stolen and be recreated with AI or anything, it just means that those creations will be used to teach the AI to make things of it's own. If you don't like the sound of that, consider looking into this matter yourself for a more detailed insight.

[winterthebeau]

fuck microsoft

[feline17ff]

LanguageTool warning

So i made the post a while ago where i talked about how i liked language tool as an alternative to grammarly

but this week they added a paraphrase option that made me remove it. not that it broke the app/extension or something but because:

i couldn't find out how to opt out of it

to paraphrase it sends to OpenAI

OpenAI has the right to store your data as per LanguageTool's privacy policy

i've contacted LanguageTool and Firefox but haven't received a reply yet

but i've deleted it from my computer and browser because i use it to correct my language for fiction writing and I don't feel comfortable giving it to AI

[machetelanding]

[commiepinkofag]

TikTok kept tabs on users who watched clips that were tagged under topics such as “LGBT,” short for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, and monitored them for at least a year.

…

Social media companies are known to maintain user profiles in order to offer them personalized ads. However, social media platforms are advised not to collect sensitive data like sexual orientation as it has the potential to make users into targets.

lists… tiktok and every other corporation

[sylvyspritii]

Warning! Tumblr has a new cookie policy thing!

They mamaged to hide the "legitimate interest" toggle very sneakily, so be sure to expand the details for every part to toggle "legitimate intetest" (THERE'S NOTHING LEGITIMATE ABOUT YOUR "INTEREST" YOU GREEDY PIECES OF SHIT) off

Also, make sure to disable the cookies off all the 9999 "partners" (other disgusting greedy corporations that waste space on your phone) or else they'll have your cookie data

Fuck corporations and fuck cookies, remember, don't give them an inch! (thank you EU GDPR, hopefully you will be expanded soon! (note, technically this form is NOT GDPR complacant btw, because it hides options behind an unclear clickthrough, which is technically illegal!))

[jolikmc-thoughts]

I don't remember having to do this more than once. And I thought my agreement going forward was implied the first time I agreed to use this service?

Also, if these updates are so important, then why not just list the summary in the pop-up so I don't have to go web-surfing for answers?

... oh! Because the "summary" page is absolutely rubbish. I see.

Man, to think I used to trust this company. "Skype-killer", indeed.

[tmarshconnors]

Privacy is a fundamental human right

Privacy is widely considered a fundamental human right. It is recognized and protected by various international and regional human rights treaties and declarations, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Privacy is essential for individuals to exercise their autonomy, maintain personal dignity, and freely express themselves without fear of surveillance or intrusion.

Privacy encompasses the right to control one's personal information, the right to be free from unwarranted surveillance, and the right to privacy in one's home, communications, and personal activities. It also includes the right to protect sensitive personal data from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure.

In an increasingly digital world, privacy concerns have become more prominent due to technological advancements and the vast amount of personal information being collected, stored, and shared. Protecting privacy in the digital age is crucial to safeguarding individuals' rights and preventing abuses of power.

Governments, organizations, and individuals have a responsibility to respect and uphold privacy rights. However, striking a balance between privacy and other societal interests, such as public safety or national security, can be a complex challenge that requires careful consideration and legal frameworks to ensure that privacy rights are not unjustifiably infringed upon.

[angiedceu23]

Anson is Detective Barry in the 2007 short film Privacy Policy 🥰

[theclassyelfman]

Guys, more shit is happening over at "X"

The privacy policy and terms of service will be changing and the details are sickening. I'm finally deleting my accounts because enough is enough.

first tweet source | second tweet source | third tweet source

[fckyeahnetart]

" i agree", dima yarovinsky, 2018

[snakebites-and-ink]

There's been some noise on the topic, so I did some research into Google's AI training/data policies, and it is not pretty.

The whole unpleasant adventure started when I read someone claim that Google scrapes the content of Google docs to train AI. This understandably worried me, because I use Google Docs for many purposes, including academic and creative endeavors that I put lots of time and effort into. So i did some digging to find out whether this was true.

Google says it doesn't use data from user content (such as Gmail and Docs) except to provide the relevant services like the Docs grammar checker or the Gmail spam detector, unless it has explicit user permission to use the data for other purposes. Google says it only uses publicly available data to train AI. A lot of people read that, feel reassured, and stop there. I wanted more elaboration, so I kept going.

In their privacy policy, Google states, "we use publicly available information to help train Google’s AI models and build products and features like Google Translate, Bard, and Cloud AI capabilities." Now I think it's a red flag that they mentioned that in their privacy policy. The purpose of a privacy policy is to detail how a company deals with the data/information of its users. If they're using public information that the users aren't involved with, why would they put that in their privacy policy instead of somewhere else? This seems like they're trying to assert an irrelevant claim that users have to agree to when they click "I agree" or check "I have read the privacy policy" before using the service.

On the upside, their privacy policy does look like it protects private user data, and only uses it in ways you agree to or to provide the services you are using. And even if it's a little weird that they're bringing it up in their privacy policy, using publicly available data sounds like an okay thing to do.

But here's where it gets really icky: By "publicly available data," they don't just mean "data that's available for public use," they mean "data that's available for public viewing."

According to Google's interpretation, "publicly available data" doesn't just mean data that's open for public use, it means any data that's accessible to the public. Therefore, as Google is using the term:

Your tumblr post is publicly available data

Your ao3 fic (if not set to only be viewable to people with an account) is publicly available data

Designs posted on redbubble or etsy so people can see what they're buying from you is publicly available data

Any Google doc set to "anyone with the link can view" is publicly available data

Articles posted for you to read online are publicly available data

Photos, including of your face and likeness, posted where the general public can view are publicly available data

The list goes on.

Google's chief legal officer said, "We’ve been clear for years that we use data from public sources—like information published to the open web and public datasets—to train the AI models behind services". I looked it up and the "open web" means websites that are public and viewable by everyone without requiring a subscription fee. So this is a whole lot more than the parts of the web that are open for copyright-free use. It in fact encompasses the majority of the things most people use the internet for. Google is literally saying that anything and everything that's not protected by either a password or a paywall is fair game for them to use for their own purposes.

So I mentioned this earlier in my rant about "publicly available data," but: Google docs. Google docs set to private are considered private user data by Google. However, if you set a Google doc to "anyone can view" or even "anyone with the link can view," Google no longer considers it private. If just anyone can look at it, Google can scrape it, according to their claims, because now it's "publicly available." In a Google support thread, when a user expressed concerns about Google scraping data from documents set to "anyone with link," the Product Expert who responded simply demanded evidence and quoted an article which didn't actually successfully refute these worries. He didn't provide real evidence to the contrary, he didn't cite any policies about Google safely handling users' data, he didn't even try to claim the accusation was wrong. He just deflected by saying they didn't have evidence. And that was where the thread ended.

Google claims to "give opportunity for notice and consent" in their AI principles. At best they are failing. I think it's more likely they are actively ignoring this principle for their own gain. Not everyone who posts to the open web does so through Google, and therefore not everyone who posts to the open web looks at Google's privacy policy, much less agrees to it, before posting. Thus, few to none of these people were given notice that Google would use the data they posted to the web, and few to none of them provided consent for any of that data to be used by Google. And yet Google claims that it can use anything posted to the open web. (And that's even discounting that many people who do use Google but don't actually read through the privacy policy.)

It's bad enough that AI scrapes the web to use data that doesn't belong to them. Done by Google, it feels especially slimy. As a major search engine, Google has a ridiculous amount of access to what's on the web, and it's basically impossible to post things in a way that allows you to reach the people you want to without being accessible to Google. Google does not own the internet, yet they are acting like simply having access to it gives them all the rights to it. They use harmless-sounding, pretty language like "publicly available information" but what they're doing is far less innocent than they want you to believe.

Now, I despise the posts that are all about doom and gloom without informing readers that they can do something about it. The purposes of this post are to educate and inspire action, not to make you feel helpless or hopeless. So here are some things you can do about this:

Contact Google with feedback and complaints. Let them know that they cannot get away with this and still have a userbase of happy campers.

Check your privacy settings, including those on individual Google docs. Don't let Google use your data for more than you want them to.

Push for legislature that protects intellectual property against AI scraping. Try to provide better grounds to stand on for the people who are fighting against data-stealing AI.

Support legal actions, such as lawsuits, against Google on this and closely related topics. The more support the people working against this have, the more likely they are to succeed.

Look into alternatives to the Google services. They don't seem to be so fast and loose with private user data that you need to transfer right away as long as you're staying informed, but it's definitely not good to be dependent on them. At the very least you should be ready to move away from Google quickly in case things get even worse.

Sources:

https://www.popsci.com/technology/google-ai-lawsuit/#:~:text=In%20a%20statement%20to%20PopSci,line%20with%20our%20AI%20Principles.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/tech/google-ai-lawsuit/index.html

https://gizmodo.com/google-says-itll-scrape-everything-you-post-online-for-1850601486

https://support.google.com/docs/thread/224378625/i-m-seeking-to-clarify-if-google-is-scraping-google-doc-data-to-train-its-ai?hl=en

https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/5/23784257/google-ai-bard-privacy-policy-train-web-scraping

https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en-US#products

https://ai.google/responsibility/principles/

Disclaimer: I'm not a legal expert of any sort, so if someone with more expertise has information to add or correct, please do so.

[i-love-pomegranates]

Just had a dream where someone threw 3 boggarts at me irl but they were just plain spheres cus I checked the not tracking and sharing my data option on the privacy policy thingy.

[b3aches]

Heads up for artists - Twitter has updated their privacy policy to enable any and all tweets to be used to train AI models.

If you have your art on there you may want to take it down before it comes into effect on September 29th

[commiepinkofag]

U.S. Marshalls Spied on Abortion Protesters Using DATAMINR >

Twitter’s “official partner” monitored the precise time and location of post-Roe demonstrations, internal emails show.

DATAMINR, AN “OFFICIAL PARTNER” of Twitter, alerted a federal law enforcement agency to pro-abortion protests and rallies in the wake of the reversal of Roe v. Wade, according to documents obtained by The Intercept through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Internal emails show that the U.S. Marshals Service received regular alerts from Dataminr, a company that persistently monitors social media for corporate and government clients, about the precise time and location of both ongoing and planned abortion rights demonstrations. The emails show that Dataminr flagged the social media posts of protest organizers, participants, and bystanders, and leveraged Dataminr’s privileged access to the so-called firehose of unrestricted Twitter data to monitor constitutionally protected speech.

[Sam Biddle, The Intercept, May 15 2023]

[zuko-always-lies]

From instructions on how to opt out, look at the official staff post on the topic. It also gives more information on Tumblr's new policies. If you are opting out, remember to opt out each separate blog individually.

Please reblog this post, so it will get more votes!