GDPR right to erasure says I can demand my personal data to be deleted, and I don't see any language limiting that to things _I_ submitted.

That's helpful if they live in the same country, can figure out who the 4chan poster was, the police are interested (or you want to risk paying a lawyer), you're willing to sink the time pursuing such action (and if criminal, risk adversarial LEO interaction), and are satisfied knowing hundreds of others may be doing the same and won't be deterred. Of course, friends and co-workers are too close to you to post publicly when they generate it. Thankfully, the Taylor Swift laws in the US have stopped generation of nonconsensual imagery and video of its namesake (it hasn't).

Daughter's school posted pictures of her online without an opt-out, but she's also on Facebook from family members and it's just kind of... well beyond the point of trying to suppress. Probably just best to accept people can imagine you naked, at any age, doing any thing. What's your neighbor doing with the images saved from his Ring camera pointed at the sidewalk? :shrug:

Are you trying to argue that 10 years ago when I uploaded my resume to linkedin, that I should have known it'd be used for AI training?

Or that teenager that signed up to facebook should know that the embarrassing things they're posting is going to train AI and is, as you called it, public?

What about the blog I started 25 years ago and then took down but it lives in the geocities archive. Was I supposed to know it'd go to an AI overlord corporation when I was in middle school writing about dragon photos I found on google?

And we're not even getting into data breaches, or something that was uploaded as private and then sold when the corporation changed their privacy policy decades after it was uploaded.

It's not a bad analogy when you don't give all the graces to corporations and none to the exploited.

> Most people including me do expect that their "public" data is used for AI training.

Based on what ordinary people have been saying, I don't think this is true. Or, maybe it's true now that the cat is out of the bag, but I don't think most people expected this before.

Most tech-oriented people did, of course, but we're a small minority. And even amongst our subculture, a lot of people didn't see this abuse coming. I didn't, or I would have removed all of my websites from the public web years earlier than I did.

>based on the ads everyone get

I'm not sure what you mean here? In context I suspect you mean 'because ads were chosen from a perspective of knowledge about you'?? But that's really opposite my experience (UK).

Ads now go hard on brainwashing. Same advert over-and-over, almost never anything I want to buy.

YouTube suggestions are pretty much inline with my previous viewing though.

My ISP has a list of every domain I connect to, my streaming providers know every video we watch, the supermarkets and credits companies know every item we buy at the shops, but still the brainwashing attempts continue for things we'd simply never buy.

No, the average person has no idea what “ai training” even is. Should the average person have an above average iq? Yes. Could they? No. Don’t be average yourself.

Seriously, when YOU posted something on the Internet 20 years ago you expected it to be used by a corporation to train an AI 20 years later?