Skip to content

We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink

Technology
461 192 0
  • AI and misinformation

    Technology technology
    3
    16 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    D
    Don’t lose hope, just pretend to with sarcasm. Or if you are feeling down it could work the other way too. https://aibusiness.com/nlp/sarcasm-is-really-really-really-easy-for-ai-to-handle#close-modal
  • Google confirms more ads on your paid YouTube Premium Lite soon

    Technology technology
    268
    1
    937 Stimmen
    268 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    pfr@lemmy.sdf.orgP
    I think it's because it's a desktop app only (for now) and most people are consuming content on handhelds? Just a theory.. Freetube does need an app. I use a fork of NewPipe called PipeBender on Android and it works most of the time but not all the time. Freetube has never failed me though.
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    3 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.
  • Sunsetting the Ghostery Private Browser

    Technology technology
    8
    1
    33 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    P
    Sunsetting Dawn? Of course
  • New Supermaterial: As Strong As Steel And As Light As Styrofoam

    Technology technology
    21
    1
    60 Stimmen
    21 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    D
    I remember an Arthur Clarke novel where a space ship needs water from the planet below. The easiest thing is to lower cables from space and then lift some ice bergs.
  • 361 Stimmen
    112 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    M
    Well, that's a big component: how efficient / environmentally destructive is the mining? Also, as electricity consumption in areas like China, India, Africa increases, they're going to start needing big multiples of the amount of copper used in the US/Europe/ANZ to-date.
  • 3 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    S
    The free option is not sustainable and does not reward the correct customer/business relationship.
  • 44 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    G
    It varies based on local legislation, so in some places paying ransoms is banned but it's by no means universal. It's totally valid to be against paying ransoms wherever possible, but it's not entirely black and white in some situations. For example, what if a hospital gets ransomed? Say they serve an area not served by other facilities, and if they can't get back online quickly people will die? Sounds dramatic, but critical public services get ransomed all the time and there are undeniable real world consequences. Recovery from ransomware can cost significantly more than a ransom payment if you're not prepared. It can also take months to years to recover, especially if you're simultaneously fighting to evict a persistent (annoyed, unpaid) threat actor from your environment. For the record I don't think ransoms should be paid in most scenarios, but I do think there is some nuance to consider here.