Skip to content

Most of us will leave behind a large ‘digital legacy’ when we die. Here’s how to plan what happens to it

Technology
47 30 786
  • 99 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    a_wild_mimic_appears@lemmy.dbzer0.comA
    Google has co-operated with the ACCC, admitted liability and agreed to jointly submit to the Court that Google should pay a total penalty of $55 million $55 million penalty for Google is a joke.
  • 25 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 15 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    J
    They haven't even really completed the pump stage yet, and they already want to move on to dump? This won't end well...
  • 31 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Google’s electricity demand is skyrocketing

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    189 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    116 Aufrufe
    W
    What's dystopian is that a company like google will fight tooth and nail to remain the sole owner and rights holder to such a tech. A technology that should be made accessible outside the confines of capitalist motives. Such technologies have the potential to lift entire populations out of poverty. Not to mention that they could mitigate global warming considerably. It is simply not in the interest of humanity to allow one or more companies to hold a monopoly over such technology
  • Tech Company Recruiters Sidestep Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    20 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Welcome to the web we lost

    Technology technology
    22
    1
    181 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    244 Aufrufe
    C
    Is it though? Its always far easier to be loud and obnoxious than do something constructive, even with the internet and LLMs, in fact those things are amplifiers which if anything make the attention imbalance even more drastic and unrepresentative of actual human behaviour. In the time it takes me to write this comment some troll can write a dozen hateful ones, or a bot can write a thousand. Doesn't mean humans are shitty in a 1000/1 ratio, just means shitty people can now be a thousand times louder.
  • 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.