I think this is slightly misguided in this case; I think your position is more used for safety purposes rather than the copyright purposes here (i.e., while both touch on what happens to someone&#x27;s personal data once online, your example seems to be more about protection and the article is talking about a business agreement)<p>If the door was allowed to swing both ways, and users could assume that anything that businesses upload is fair game to copy and use for their personal sites, it wouldn&#x27;t be as egregious. But in many cases, corporations hold far more power when it comes to takedowns for copyrighted material.<p>What is being argued here is that the hashtags should count as consent, but I think that&#x27;s really bad because there isn&#x27;t really any way to give informed consent in the form of a hashtag. Each corporation is going to have different media replication terms and conditions that they offer, and I don&#x27;t think that you should be able to give away rights to a work without actually knowing what you&#x27;re agreeing to.<p>As an aside, I&#x27;m aware that often people sign agreements without reading the entirety of the agreement and have no idea what they&#x27;re agreeing to. In that instance, they at least have the chance to know what it is they&#x27;re agreeing to and they choose to ignore it. If hashtags become consent, the users wouldn&#x27;t even have a chance to read the agreement before they agree to it. That just seems like horrible precedent to set.