Skip to content

YouTube relaxes moderation rules to allow more controversial content. Videos are allowed if "freedom of expression value may outweigh harm risk"

Technology
67 48 2.3k
  • 778 Stimmen
    157 Beiträge
    78 Aufrufe
    G
    closet full of women~~'s clothes~~
  • 356 Stimmen
    135 Beiträge
    382 Aufrufe
    S
    Storing power is expensive and many energy storage techniques require a lot of resources to produce. The more we move toward solar generation, the more we should plan on being opportunistic with energy when it is plentiful For example, electrolysis isn't the most efficient way to store power, but if energy is cheap, it may be better on net to do it opportunistically when there's excess energy and use that hydrogen for things like producing artificial butter (and perhaps fuel mobile equipment like forklifts and delivery trucks). Cows aren't particularly efficient at turning biomass into human food. There's a ton of waste in the process, and they need a lot of space. A factory doesn't need to sustain life of an organism, it just needs to turn one set of compounds into another. Maybe it's not there now, but getting it there will be a lot easier than genetically engineering a much better cow.
  • Wikipedia loses challenge against UK Online Safety Act rules

    Technology technology
    20
    1
    176 Stimmen
    20 Beiträge
    29 Aufrufe
    isveryloud@lemmy.caI
    Depends where in Canada, I never had a complaint about bad food in Montreal, but Winnipeg's grocery stores left me wanting a bit.
  • OpenAI’s new model can't believe that Trump is back in office

    Technology technology
    27
    1
    295 Stimmen
    27 Beiträge
    119 Aufrufe
    magnus919@lemmy.brandyapple.comM
    No doubt inspired by the Chinese models like deepseek-r1, qwen3. They will flat out gaslight you if you try to correct them.
  • Cloudflare to AI Crawlers: Pay or be blocked

    Technology technology
    15
    1
    179 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    171 Aufrufe
    F
    Make a dummy Google Account, and log into it when on the VPN. Having an ad history avoids the blocks usually. (Note: only do this if your browsing is not activist related/etc) Also, if it's image captchas that never end, switch to the accessibility option for the captcha.
  • 4 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 461 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    2k Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • 32 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    81 Aufrufe
    J
    Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state: Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it. No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions. It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted. From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175 influence the sentence From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.