this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
245 points (92.7% liked)

Technology

59772 readers
3191 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 40 points 2 days ago (3 children)

End users really need to just be more skeptical. Big names need to register their own domain and point people to those places.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

End users really need to just be more skeptical.

That's.... The opposite of a solution.

This is how you make systemic problems worse, not better.

Humans are largely morons, you can't fix this. But you can fix the systems they interact with to avoid their vulnerabilities from being taken advantage of.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

But how much do I trust the central authority that would be in charge of implementing that?

Personally, we, individual people, should just be calling out others spreading BS. There's been more then a few times someone has brought me something fishy sounding, I've responded with "and did you hear about that on facebook?"

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It takes too much time and resources. A lie runs halfway around the world before the truth laces up it's shoes.

Manipulators and liars need to be stopped by a higher authority. I'm fine with that authority being civil liability, the criminal justice system obviously sucks at it. Let's get serious and stop letting this stochastic terrorism go unpunished.

Lose your dad to Fox News conspiracies? Should be able to sue Fox News for child support. Lose your husband to a mass shooting caused by some deranged Trumper that thinks Paul Pelosi is coming to take our guns? Should be able to sue trump personally for wrongful death. It's not like Fox and Trump don't know what the consequences are.

Let juries be the arbiters.

This problem isn't going to be solved without financial liability or violence.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Well yeah that's a problem of course but that doesn't negate the reasoning I stated in other areas of this thread.

I'm not promoting trust in a central authority or government here that's a separate problem that exists on an entirely different plane.

Yes you who probably has some amount of critical thinking skills can do that. The majority of young generational individuals today, cannot. Which largely negates the "well they should get gud" argument. It's a systematic problem, you can't solve systematic problems that way....

I'm not going to repeat myself though, my last paragraph in the previous message is a fairly succinct tldr. This is a principal that's been applied and works across industries, and is critically important for building "safe systems"

Safe systems being systems that are designed to be operated and interacted with safely. There is a practical infinite number of safe systems that you can find examples of to further drive my point home. We can design systems that provide safety from human behavior and failings, the largest obstacle is usually both the political aspect and the aspect of individuals who refuse to acknowledge that safe systems are important.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Lol if you think it's the young people who can't do critical thinking, I'd like you to take a look at the Trump voter base.

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Trust it as much as it shows itself to have your interests in mind, or how well you judge it to be working towards the intended purpose.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't necessarily trust info that claims to have my interest in mind because that how con artists approach their marks. They find a common problem, then confidently proclaim that have the perfect solution.

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I said "shows itself to" not "claims it does". Big difference.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is there a difference on social media? Unless they cite sources or I independently verify it, how are those different?

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I thought we were talking about trusting or not trusting the "central authority"? I think you're thinking about trusting individual posters or not.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Both. I don't trust a central authority to make judgments on who to or not to trust on social media and I don't trust individuals who post anything other then shallow opinions. If I make some heavy claim online, I always post a source when possible.

We're already seeing how accentual authorizes are demonetizing posts for using words that advertisers don't like. I saw a discussion on the nazi imagery used for villains in a certain show get autobanned for promoting hate speech.

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago

Sounds like you shouldn't trust those people then. We are in agreement.

[–] HelloHotel@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Theres two ways of looking at safe systems,

  • People are idiots and will get themselves hurt. The machine should prevent them to keep them safe at all costs.

Or

  • without guardrails, people are vulnerable idiots and I am too. Let the machine prevent them until they understand and accept the risk.

As memtioned elsewhere in the thread, political pressure prevents implementation of safe systems. I absolutely love safeguards and being safe because foot guns are nasty. (Its why Rust is a great language.) but I will fight against things clearly created under the former philosophy because it locks people out of their own property. Because sometimes the "safety" is an excuse for controlling behavor.

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] HelloHotel@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's a programing term that comes from the phrase "shooting yourself in the foot". Come to think about it, a loaded gun is a great example of safety mechinisms.

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 2 points 1 day ago

Yep that makes sense. Thanks!

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 19 points 2 days ago (3 children)

"X need to just..." is a surefire way to never change anything. People will never just. They won't.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

Gotta be careful with those variable labels…

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Ha. Someone once told me, "talking is the first step to inaction."

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Early on with twitter, I always wondered how people knew that a celebrity account was real or not. I was bothered by how trusting people were in, what was essentially the honor system. At least with bsky and mastodon, you can register a domain or use your already existing domain as part of your username.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

"Mr Cook, why isn't your company's bluesky account just Apple?"

"Apple was taken. We respect the guff of the individual that currently holds that account. And will be using our current account going forward."

"Do you feel that people may not associate Crabapple@bluesky.social easily with the company?"

"Look... we respect the individual, but we're clearly not happy with the situation."

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Apple would just register Apple@Apple.com. We already know Apple computers owns apple.com. Tim Cook would own Cook@Apple.com for official CEO press releases.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I live in a better world.

A sillier world.