Skip to content

Fight Chat Control: The EU (still) wants to scan your private messages and photos

Technology
28 16 150
  • Microsoft cuts off China's early access to bug disclosures

    Technology technology
    7
    1
    122 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    V
    If that was any argument. Who doesn't steal everything from everyone ? Everything on this planet is literally build from stealing. It's just good guys vs bad guys. I no longer know who is bad or good in this game.
  • 376 Stimmen
    113 Beiträge
    576 Aufrufe
    1
    Or built for a different market, like 90s Hondas/Nissans etc. which assumed every country was as safe as Japan when it came to car theft. Nowadays its mostly profit driven. Security is not cheap and can add it's own set of headaches (security vs convenience). Edit: Nissan still sucked at it from what I remember hearing of those and some kias being the main target near where we lived.
  • The overlooked global risk of the AI precariat

    Technology technology
    3
    5 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    cecilkorik@lemmy.caC
    It is explicitly intended to be, you only have to listen to them talk about it for that to be abundantly clear. Fuck, even ask an AI themselves and they'll tell you about the dangers of how it's being used. The only people saying it's not are the utopian dreamers who are expecting it to be something it's currently not and likely has no hope of ever being. This is not a utopia and the people creating these technologies are not utopians in the slightest, they are mercenary capitalists and they will instantly grind you into a paste without even a shred of remorse or even an acknowledgement that they've done so, if it helps them get their next dollar. Some of them only think about you in the abstract. Most of them don't think of you at all.
  • 86 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    364 Aufrufe
    A
    You don’t have the power to decarbonize all electricity From the article: Location also affects how carbon emissions are managed. Germany has the largest carbon footprint for video streaming at 76g CO₂e per hour of streaming, reflecting its continued reliance on coal and fossil fuels. In the UK, this figure is 48g CO₂e per hour, because its energy mix includes renewables and natural gas, increasingly with nuclear as central to the UK’s low-carbon future. France, with a reliance on nuclear is the lowest, at 10g CO₂e per hour. This is a massive difference, and clearly doable, nothing that would be limited to the distant future. So I get this right? I'm naive for expecting govt regulations to put companies' behaviour under control, whereas you're realistic by expecting hundreds of millions of people deciding to systematically minimise their Youtube/Tiktok/Spotify/Netflix/Zoom usage? Hmm, alright. And yet in an another comment you also expect that Spotify shouldn't introduce video streaming, without any external regulation but out of pure goodness of their hearts?
  • 321 Stimmen
    34 Beiträge
    528 Aufrufe
    F
    Bro found the block button
  • Uploading The Human Mind Could Become a Reality, Expert Says

    Technology technology
    12
    1
    6 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    130 Aufrufe
    r3d4ct3d@midwest.socialR
    what mustard is best for the human body?
  • 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.
  • 21 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet