Baldur BjarnasonMay 12, 2024
One of the things that the Stack Overflow brouhaha demonstrates is that it doesn’t matter if a service was founded by people trusted by the community (Atwood and Spolsky) and was broadly community-led. If it’s a VC-funded startup, they will sell out their users at some point.
Show thread▚ pixelistik ▗▚▗▘May 12, 2024

@baldur Trust is all fine, but what counts is the license. In this case, our content is under CC-BY-SA. What seems relevant to me:

- using the content for AI training does (unfortunately?) not trigger the attribution requirement ("fair use", bla bla)
- it should be feasible to pull of a fork of Stack overflow, with a legal copy of all existing content

Show threadmirabilosMay 12, 2024

@pixelistik @baldur

using the content for AI training does (unfortunately?) not trigger the attribution requirement

No matter what Creative Commons are hallucinating, SO/SE are sidestepping this entirely by relying on the commercial dual licence in the ToS which they sneakily did not limit to as needed to run the platform itself.

Show thread▚ pixelistik ▗▚▗▘
@mirabilos @baldur Yes, that's true, so my first point may be irrelevant. I still think that the second point (an open license as an "escape hatch") is a valid option. And I somehow prefer the legal perspective over the emotional discussion.
May 12, 2024 at 9:03pmWeb
Show threadmirabilosMay 12, 2024

@pixelistik @baldur I don’t understand what you’re asking/saying?

There’s a public data dump of SO/SE under CC-BY-SA which people can use.

(Codidact have imported some sites early on but later found that untenable; active Q&A sites tend to work better if they only have their own, active, content apparently. @amin has done something to search these dumps, and I’d not mind having that separate.)