Mastodon MigrationApr 27, 2023

When you post on Twitter(1) or Bluesky(2) you grant them a broad perpetual license to use, modify, and sublicense your content. You effectively make them co-owners of your content. They can mine it and monetize it. They can even sell it. When you post on Mastodon(3) most instances take no license at all. That's right, they tell you what they are doing with your content—storing posts and delivering them—but no license.

1/2
#twittermigration #TermsOfService #PrivacyPolicy #ContentLicense

Show threadfluffy 💜Apr 28, 2023
@mastodonmigration @jaycie I’m as wary about bluesky as anyone else but this is yet another iteration of “this part of our TOS is necessary because this is how the Internet works.” Yes the wording seems overbearing. Lawyers make them write it overbearingly, because of copyright law and fear of lawsuits.
Show threadJaycieApr 28, 2023
@fluffy @mastodonmigration These are very different in terms of degree, though. The "co-owner" comparison is apt. And we don't have to tolerate so much overreach just because VC social media has normalized it, either.
Show threadfluffy 💜Apr 28, 2023
@jaycie @mastodonmigration I mean my point is that it's not bluesky specifically that's awful here, it's the concept of letting companies hold on to your shit in the first place
Show threadJaycie
@fluffy @mastodonmigration Oh, yeah, also very true.
Apr 28, 2023 at 9:35pmWeb
Show threadMastodon MigrationApr 29, 2023

@jaycie @fluffy Yes, extracting a content license is not Bluesky specific, however the NOT ALL LICENSES ARE THE SAME. The Bluesky license is much broader than most others, because it is "PERPETUAL, TRANSFERABLE AND WORLDWIDE". It never ends even if you "delete" the content and they can sell it to whomever they want. Also, most licenses have some sort limitation for the purpose of using the content ONLY for the application. Not Bluesky. They can use it for anything they want.

#ContentLicense