this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2026
468 points (99.8% liked)

Technology

83632 readers
4520 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 48 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

The strategy to fuck with a class action lawsuit is to fuck with the lawyers leading the class action lawsuit.

... This is how you get another class action lawsuit, which is comprised entirely of lawyers.

Jesus Fucking Christ, these people are idiots.

[–] scutiger@lemmy.world 12 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Not that I think anything Facebook does is good, but doesn't this just make sense? They're not required to provide ad space to anyone, so why would they provide it to people who want to harm their business? If I was the evil CEO of an evil corporation, I would do the same.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 30 points 4 hours ago

Yes, but it also hurts their case when they're demonstrating clearly that they can filter out ads they determine to be harmful.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 11 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I hope it leads to them losing another class action about scams. They claim it's too hard to regulate ads when there are so money, but clearly they can filter if they choose to.

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

I hope all of this leads to a huge swing in popular opinion that data surveillance has the same potential as home surveillance, meaning that by monitoring the data of the average person across platforms — you can reach the same conclusions as you would by taking tenancy in their home to monitor their livelihoods. Then, I hope we revisit the constitutional amendments and ask ourselves whether a modern interpretation of the 3rd would yield that protection of the house (I.e., “no soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner”) translates to protection of the data. Then I hope that we can interpret Engblom v. Carey to mean “soldier” applies to any executive authority. Finally, I hope we can all start paying a lot more attention to Larry Ellison — the man who is consolidating a whole lot of private healthcare data and top-secret defense contracts right now while the world remains focused on the Iran war.

I know, I am asking for a lot.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 hours ago

They’re already monitoring us in our homes. What do you think Alexa was for? Why do you think every smart appliance connects to the cloud instead of a local hub now?