Technology
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
view the rest of the comments
You will own nothing and you will be grateful.
What did she purchase or pay for?
I think you're missing the point here, which is that you don't even own the content you've created yourself when you use one of the corporate platforms.
In what way has Google taken ownership rights?
Google has restricted what people can do with their content, i.e. their ownership rights.
That's not how that works, and if you can point out what law says that speech may be posted on any platform regardless of terms of service I'd love to see that. Is it your position that if Twitter or a lemmy mod blocks content that this is an infringement of my rights?
No, my position is that you shouldn't use these platforms or at least not make yourself dependent on them.
Then you should have stated that rather than your inaccurate and off topic comment. I didn't even disagree that free Google is a stupid platform to use as a professional.
Or maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions quite as much.
Google is forbidding the author from the right to make copies of their own work (aka copy-right)
No they aren't. They have access, they can copy into whatever they desire.
No. She has not. I encourage you to make it beyond the title.
she gave google the valuable rights to monitor her activity, in exchange for access to some pretty shitty web services which come with no customer support.
it was probably a bad deal for her, but there isn't a lot of competition, there's a lot of pressure for people to undervalue the rights they're paying with, and it's hard to compare how much of those rights are at stake between different companies without the assistance of a lawyer - so it's understandable that so she and so many people fall for it.