Technology
Which posts fit here?
Any news that are at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies or tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
Because billionaires.
Why do you think? Rules are for poor people.
Billionaires have the tightest class solidarity
A: money
Cause they found funding fascism was easier.
Cowards.
Coward$.
I'm not going to use that website to check, but is nobody making Tim Apple deepfakes to goad him? Cant somebody just ask it to recreate that emo-Elon picture that he tried to ban?
Could Elon buy them? Does he have that much wealth power?
EDIT: to be clear, it’s not that I want him to.‘it’s just frightening that it even sounds plausible enough to question in ignorance
Nah. He can’t buy Apple (market cap $3.8T), or Google ($3.96T). He’s not a trillionaire yet.
To put it into perspective, if he managed to sell all of his ownerships of companies for the most optimistic idea of his current net worth*, he could still buy less than 19% of Apple.
He’d need several friends to chip in to even get to 50%. A trillion is a lot until inflation gets out of hand.
* $717 billion; probably $100 billion too high at least.
Should they pull every web browser, too? They can clearly be used for nefarious purposes.
The difference between the two is that, while the browser can be used to access child porn, X actively generated the porn.
The browser can access X & any website. Isn't material produced from actual child sexual abuse worse than fictions generated without it?
The browser can access X & any website.
A browser doesn't activately generate it. X did.
Isn’t material produced from actual child sexual abuse worse than fictions generated without it?
They're both equally as bad because they result in the same things: production and advancement of child porn.
Actual child sexual abuse is equally as bad as fiction? Did you know there's a difference between truth & fiction? I doubt abuse victims would agree these are the same or equally as bad.
Pulling the X-only client while keeping the everything including X client doesn't seem to accomplish anything. Neither client is actively generating anything: it's server side. Your argument seems to be the client that accesses bad needs to be blocked, but the client that accesses bad & worse somehow does not.
Actual child sexual abuse is equally as bad as fiction? Did you know there’s a difference between truth & fiction? I doubt abuse victims would agree these are the same or equally as bad.
Both equally propegate child sex abuse, and I'm sure the kids these deep fakes are on might agree with me. In both topics, a kid is getting exploited for sexual material.
Neither client is actively generating anything: it’s server side
Oh, so the generating and/or distributing technology of the child porn is in the possession, custody, and control of X? Seems to make my point: X generated and/or distributed the child porn. On top of that, it made revenue off it from the ads that supported the active distributed of said child porn. Whose paying the electricity bill as an expense to profit on the child porn? X.
Your argument seems to be the client that accesses bad needs to be blocked, but the client that accesses bad & worse somehow does not.
My point, going back to my origional supposition, is that it is absurd to blame Mozilla (or the like) for the nefarious uses of all its users when they merely are a tool through which the web is accessed, and they don't make a profit directly from whatever material is accessed.