So, let's look at this reply.
Much has been written lately of the company’s decision to pause the distribution of the anonymized data dump that has historically been posted.
Nothing to say here, some could point out that this seems to imply that the userbase said TOO much (since before this post the company said exactly one thing and now even that apparently was incorrect - see next point ). Therefore this could feel a little condescending to some but personally I would just ignore it.
Our intention was never to stop posting the data dump, only to begin to collect more information on how it was being used and by whom - especially in light of the rise of LLMs and questions around how genAI models are handling attribution.
This is in direct contrast with the information the community got before from another staff member that said
We are looking for ways to gate access to the Dump, APIs, and SEDE, that will allow individuals access to the data while preventing misuse by organizations looking to profit from the work of our community
A similar but different message. It is also worth noticing that if the intent was indeed "begin to collect more information on how it was being used"
- I don't see how you could do that while the dump was not accessible anymore.
- I don't see why you should do that without any warning.
But wait! Maybe that was the test? Getting data about how long it would take to the community to notice? If that was your plan, great! Now we know that someone in the community is using the dump and will notice when it goes missing.
That said, there is also another logical association some will probably make. This happened about at the same time the company announced to the press some plan about the monetization of the data dump.
However, it’s clear that many individual users (academics, researchers, etc) have an immediate need to access updated versions of the dumps. So we are re-enabling the automatic data dumps (and uploading the one that’s about a week overdue).
Again, I won't argue her but I'll let you know that this reads a tad like "But since you folk can't wait five minutes [...]". The problem is not the wait, the problem is that the stop came out of nowhere since you "forgot" to announce it and even if you probably are not legally bound to provide said data users still expect to be warned if the implicit agreement changes.
We believe that this can happen by end of the day Friday. We will continue to work toward the creation of certain guardrails (for large AI/LLM companies) for both the dumps and the API, but again - we have no intention of restricting/charging community members or other responsible users of the dumps or the API from accessing them.
I fear you... can't? Either you provide the dump "as is" and nothing can stop anyone to repost it even if the original download required a login or you try to "watermark" it in some way that would workaround the current license and make it a derivative work that would not be reproducible but in that case... That is not the dump anymore.
As part of this project, API users should be on the lookout for a very brief survey that will be coming out (announced here and on stackapps.com) that asks about the features that you most use/would like to see in the API or data dumps moving forward so that we can plan for those, as well as collect general input.
In the meantime, the data dumps will be re-enabled by end of day Friday. We will communicate here when that has been completed or if there are any delays. We will also post here prior to making any future changes to the dumps or distribution of the dumps.
Fine I guess, why wasn't this the original way to go?
Conclusions
This announcement leaves me with some mixed feelings. On the front, this seems like a "victory" for rationality - the dump has been restored, everything is fine now and you even promised to work on a solution together (albeit in the form of a survey).
Yet, in the current circumstances of the ongoing strike, I can't help but feel like this has been "staged" in some way as a part of a bigger strategy to show that the company did its part to "reach out" to the moderators on strike and now they should do their part to unless they are "bad actor with an agenda to prolong a conflict that the company was trying to solve rapidly".
The decision to shut down the dump seems to precede the strike and that was confirmed by a neutral third party - an ex employee so the things should not be related. But at the same time this victory only restores the initial status quo without any real gain for the community. With this stunt the company has managed to "do its part toward an agreement" without actually changing nothing, and now it feels only expected that the mods should concede, "do their part" on something too. Too put it bluntly, while it makes little sense if we assume all the related information the community got are accurate, all manages to feel very strategical and in a way even convenient for the company.