Skip to content

Perplexity offers to buy Google Chrome for $34.5 billion

Technology
51 43 39
  • Substack’s extremist ecosystem is flourishing

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    32 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Adding Text to Your Ebitengine Game

    Technology technology
    2
    5 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    R
    This video complements the text tutorial at https://trevors-tutorials.com/0006-adding-text-to-your-ebitengine-game/ Trevors-Tutorials.com is where you can find free programming tutorials. The focus is on Go and Ebitengine game development. Watch the channel introduction for more info.
  • 33 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    39 Aufrufe
    alphane_moon@lemmy.worldA
    Call it word salad, mashed potatoes or Peruvian causa, makes no difference to me. The fact remains that libertarianism is an American oligarch polemical strategy aimed at enabling corruption and keeping local plebs in line (because Americans respond particularly well to certain keywords and copytext). Denying that doesn't give you much credibility! Just think for a second how it makes you look! I saw all I needed by clicking a random article on the Cato's frontpage. It's is clear that they are demagogues and malicious. And I am willing to bet if we look at their funding, it is all run by oligarch/criminal groups. I am not going to deny basic facts about life "follow the money" based on some half assed rehortic. We good?
  • Reddit executive Roxy Young is departing the social media company

    Technology technology
    6
    1
    70 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    65 Aufrufe
    R
    Sinking ship.
  • Hastags killed

    Technology technology
    6
    1
    16 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    71 Aufrufe
    klu9@lemmy.caK
    £ says: "The fuck they are, mate!"
  • 54 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    79 Aufrufe
    F
    After some further reading it seems obvious that the two incidents are entirely unrelated, but it was a fun rabbit hole for a sec!
  • 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.
  • 54 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    44 Aufrufe
    fauxpseudo@lemmy.worldF
    Nobody ever wants to talk about white collar on white collar crime.