Skip to content
linux-nerds.org

linux-nerds.org
  1. Übersicht
  2. Technology
  3. Discord unveils Discord Orbs, a new in-app currency that users can earn by completing Quests, which reward participants who interact with ads

Discord unveils Discord Orbs, a new in-app currency that users can earn by completing Quests, which reward participants who interact with ads

Technology
137 83 5
Anmelden zum Antworten

  • P

    As disinformation and hate thrive online, YouTube quietly changed how it moderates content

    Technology technology
    18
    83 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    noodlesreborn@lemmy.worldN
    I think people speaking on these subjects should genuinely come together to host their content on a Peertube instance and broadcast it to their Youtube audience, because this is a pretty strong use case. To be able to speak freely about these matters and inform people is pretty serious.
  • flango@lemmy.eco.brF

    What Happens If an Asteroid Heads for Earth?

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    33 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    A
    So now I come to you, with open arms
  • D

    Meo: AI Girlfriend Sparks Debate Over Digital Intimacy and Emotional Ethics

    Technology technology
    5
    1
    8 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    reverendender@sh.itjust.worksR
    I read the article. This is what the “debate” is: Experts: This is objectively horrible, and does not replace human interaction, and is probably harmful. Meta: This is awesome and therapeutic. Now give us monies!
  • P

    ChatGPT Mostly Source Wikipedia; Google AI Overviews Mostly Source Reddit

    Technology technology
    21
    1
    193 Stimmen
    21 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    S
    Sure: for professionals. However when casually commenting in a forum it is fine because the reader can go check the citations (and perhaps come back and add to the thread).
  • tal@lemmy.todayT

    Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • alphane_moon@lemmy.worldA

    Twitch is getting vertical livestreams

    Technology technology
    20
    1
    12 Stimmen
    20 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    zombiemantis@lemmy.worldZ
    Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I kinda assumed they already supported it, like YouTube Shorts adopting the vertical format for shorts after Ticktock blew up.
  • H

    Microsoft Bans Employees From Using DeepSeek App

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    122 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    L
    (Premise - suppose I accept that there is such a definable thing as capitalism) I'm not sure why you feel the need to state this in a discussion that already assumes it as a necessary precondition of, but, uh, you do you. People blaming capitalism for everything then build a country that imports grain, while before them and after them it’s among the largest exporters on the planet (if we combine Russia and Ukraine for the “after” metric, no pun intended). ...what? What does this have to do with literally anything, much less my comment about innovation/competition? Even setting aside the wild-assed assumptions you're making about me criticizing capitalism means I 'blame [it] for everything', this tirade you've launched into, presumably about Ukraine and the USSR, has no bearing on anything even tangentially related to this conversation. People praising capitalism create conditions in which there’s no reason to praise it. Like, it’s competitive - they kill competitiveness with patents, IP, very complex legal systems. It’s self-regulating and self-optimizing - they make regulations and do bailouts preventing sick companies from dying, make laws after their interests, then reactively make regulations to make conditions with them existing bearable, which have a side effect of killing smaller companies. Please allow me to reiterate: ...what? Capitalists didn't build literally any of those things, governments did, and capitalists have been trying to escape, subvert, or dismantle those systems at every turn, so this... vain, confusing attempt to pin a medal on capitalism's chest for restraining itself is not only wrong, it fails to understand basic facts about history. It's the opposite of self-regulating because it actively seeks to dismantle regulations (environmental, labor, wage, etc), and the only thing it optimizes for is the wealth of oligarchs, and maybe if they're lucky, there will be a few crumbs left over for their simps. That’s the problem, both “socialist” and “capitalist” ideal systems ignore ape power dynamics. I'm going to go ahead an assume that 'the problem' has more to do with assuming that complex interacting systems can be simplified to 'ape (or any other animal's) power dynamics' than with failing to let the richest people just do whatever they want. Such systems should be designed on top of the fact that jungle law is always allowed So we should just be cool with everybody being poor so Jeff Bezos or whoever can upgrade his megayacht to a gigayacht or whatever? Let me say this in the politest way I know how: LOL no. Also, do you remember when I said this? ‘Won’t someone please think of the billionaires’ is wearing kinda thin You know, right before you went on this very long-winded, surreal, barely-coherent ramble? Did you imagine I would be convinced by literally any of it when all it amounts to is one giant, extraneous, tedious equivalent of 'Won't someone please think of the billionaires?' Simp harder and I bet maybe you can get a crumb or two yourself.
  • F

    *deleted by creator*

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet