176
submitted 10 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 47 points 10 months ago

There's no denying what happened after the pandemic started....no fucking flight noise, no car noises, fresh air. It was a sort of soundscapes utopia. You could actually hear the birds chirping their asses off from happiness.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

We're never actually going to win this arms race. We need a structural solution. Perhaps we could look into, maybe, decentralizing social media so no single algorithm ends up controlling huge chunks of it?

Might be worth a shot anyway, I dunno.

[-] KpntAutismus@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

this was the original intent behind the internet. but big platform with big ad support makes big money.

[-] kratoz29@lemm.ee -2 points 10 months ago

Enshitification of the Internet itself???

That surely started in its early days (because it was not mainstream accessible, only when it got to that point that process started).

[-] ech@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Not what enshittification means.

[-] kratoz29@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

I thought it meant something going to shit... We definitely had it better than when the companies took this place.

[-] shartedchocolate@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Hmm that could work 🤔

[-] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I support opposing misinformation directly. Hold the authors accountable by making them justify what they say against actual published science. Press them with punishment and make them change their tune. At this point they are a cancer killing humanity and we should have very little humanity left for them.

[-] Masterblaster@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago

if we could just get rid of the idiots waving flags and bibles... it's almost as if they're destroying the entire world with their ignorance.

[-] db2@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

They're literally a death cult.

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

How about destroying the people actually responsible? You know, like those who gave them those flags and bibles, and created the systems that indoctrinate them in to blindly worshiping both?

And also not being ableist while we're at it.. (E: better link)

[-] Masterblaster@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

the ignorant masses are the one actually responsible. they want bibles and flags. the grifters making a profit off of it would be easily legislated into oblivion if there weren't masses of cruel idiots that provide a support base.

and if calling stupid out is ableist, then i'm un-apolegetically guilty of being ableist.

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social -4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Wow, gross.
And also so wilfully fucking ignorant.
Best block of the year so far.

[-] Masterblaster@kbin.social -2 points 10 months ago

bye little bitch

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

We should do both. But at some age we must hold people accountable for their decisions.

These aren't children. These people want flags and bibles and things to hate. If they didn't, they'd stop consuming them.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 9 points 10 months ago

Denialists. Denialists. Is that new?

[-] TalesFromTheKitchen@lemmy.ml 6 points 10 months ago

Yeah YouTube monetizes anything with a drama clickbait title, ghost-dick-in-the-mouth-face, red arrow and circle bullshit. But then again, people click on it, so it's our own fault. It's just like that seo crap, people fall for it and rotten people know how to game the system.

[-] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

"These people used as much visual manipulation as they could cram into this photo/title to get people to click on it. It's the fault of those being manipulated that it's being clicked on"

[-] yamanii@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

At least we stopped blaming rape victims, but we still need to blame scammers for the scum that they are.

[-] TalesFromTheKitchen@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

You've got a point. However I believe a good amount of people are intelligent enough to see through the ruse, yet endulge in it, in a fastfood kind of way. Oh, I don't know. Don't read into it too much, I'm just ranting a bit, because I find the whole thing annoying.

[-] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

No worries, I agree that it's annoying. But it's the algorithm that makes that all but inevitable, it's not a failure of any individual or group of individuals. It's the failure of capitalism, tbh.

I'm neurodivergent, so I'm already parsing language in a strange way. So, when I come across this type of contradictory statements, I like to point them out.

[-] aniki@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

agape-mouth is how I immediately tell if a channel is bullshit or not.;

[-] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks -1 points 10 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

fallen

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Content creators have spent the past five years developing new tactics to evade YouTube's policies blocking monetization of videos making false claims about climate change, a report from a nonprofit advocacy group, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), warned Tuesday.

Verified by researchers, the AI model used was judged accurate in labeling climate-denial content approximately 78 percent of the time.

But a spokesperson confirmed to Ars that the majority of videos that the CCDH found were considered compliant with YouTube's ad policies.

Currently, YouTube's policy prohibits monetization of content "that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change."

The group recommended tweaking the policy to instead specify that YouTube prohibits content "that contradicts the authoritative scientific consensus on the causes, impacts, and solutions to climate change."

"It is vital that those advocating for action to avert climate disaster take note of this substantial shift from denial of anthropogenic climate change to undermining trust in both solutions and science itself, and shift our focus, our resources and our counternarratives accordingly," the CCDH's report said, adding that "demonetizing climate-denial" content "removes the economic incentives underpinning its creation and protects advertisers from bankrolling harmful content."


The original article contains 669 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
176 points (95.8% liked)

Technology

59414 readers
1088 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS