No, they very explicitly don't. They claim a licence in perpetuity to nearly all the same rights as the data owner, but the data subject is still the owner.

Also, that licence may not be so robust. A judge should see that the website has no obligation to continue hosting the website, and they offer nothing in return for the data, so the perpetual licence is not a reasonable term in the contract and should be struck down to something the data subject can rescind. In some respects we do have this with "the right to be forgotten" and to have businesses delete your data, however the enforcement of this is sorely lacking.

Laws change over time, though. Everyone is the victim of this practice, so eventually the law should catch up.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What do you think owning is? If I pull your strings, you're my puppet. Ownership is control.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

not necessarily. Your landlord is the owner of your flat, but he ceedes all rights to control over it to you, within the limits of the contract and can only take back co trol if he has evidence of you violating the contract.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ironically your metaphor works really well as an example of how that's not true - just because you're allowed to pull the strings, doesn't mean you're the owner of the puppet

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You know, that's kinda fair. That applies pretty well for media licensing in particular.