Skip to content

Is Google about to destroy the web?

Technology
51 34 0
  • 221 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    V
    Does it mean that some people take orders from AI and don't know it's AI ?
  • We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink

    Technology technology
    491
    1
    1k Stimmen
    491 Beiträge
    26 Aufrufe
    G
    And this is relevant how?
  • Meta is now a defense contractor

    Technology technology
    54
    1
    362 Stimmen
    54 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    B
    Best decision ever for a company. The US gov pisses away billions of their taxpayers money and buys all the low quality crap from the MIL without questions.
  • Copy Table in Excel and Paste as a Markdown Table

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    23 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    ptz@dubvee.orgP
    That's based on https://github.com/jonmagic/copy-excel-paste-markdown Would be awesome to see some Lemmy clients incorporate that. I've had it requested but haven't had a chance to really dig into it yet.
  • 50 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    G
    Anyone here use XING?
  • 93 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    G
    You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying. I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself. I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help. So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that. As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it. No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference. But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law. True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult. I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day). You then charge the guilty parents after the offense. Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ? Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?
  • 33 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    E
    Can you replace politicians I feel like that would actually be an improvement. Hell it'd probably be an improvement if the current system's replaced politicians. To be honest though I've never seen any evidence that AGI is inevitable, it's perpetually 6 months away except in 6 months it'll still be 6 months away.
  • Are We All Becoming More Hostile Online?

    Technology technology
    31
    1
    213 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    A
    Back in the day I just assumed everyone was lying. Or trying to get people worked up, and we called them trolls. Learning how to ignore the trolls, and not having trust for strangers on the internet, coupled with the ability to basically not care what random people said is a lost art. Somehow people forgot to give other the people this memo, including the "you don't fucking join social networks as your self". Anonymity makes this all work. Eternal September newbies just didn't get it.