this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
841 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

60350 readers
4351 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 24 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Now we're doing headlines like this with tech companies in addition to politicians? These fuckers act with impunity because they can.

For some reason, it appears the unbreakable barrier for humanity is switching the fucking social media site you go to.

What would it take for people to consider not looking at Instagram and Facebook? A feed full of snuff videos?

[–] slowmotionrunner@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 2 hours ago

“Total Chaos” feels a bit overblown…

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

You know what would be an effective 'protest'? If employees started deleting important files...

[–] mke@programming.dev 15 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Sorry, I can't tell if you're serious or not.

It's extremely unlikely that facebook has in place a system that allows any lowly engineer to cause such damage alone. No hard drive hosting unique files no one else has, without backups, without security, and so on.

If you're a billion dollar corp that depends on an important recipe to make your product, you're not leaving the only copy of it on front desk with no oversight.

I don't see how deleting files would work as a form of protest. Would probably get you in trouble, though.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Unionize tech and then it can happen.

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels ... upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all

[–] mke@programming.dev 1 points 3 minutes ago

Well, yeah, if tech workers unionized, maybe they'd have some leverage. Let's hope they get to that before the next absurd move from big tech? Fingers crossed, 143rd time's the charm.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 hour ago

Okay, so what are employees doing? The title says "employees protest", by "protest" do they mean "complain but continue to follow orders"? Because that's basically the norm for any job.

[–] stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca 55 points 4 hours ago (5 children)

Its amazing how quickly these assholes have dropped any sort of facade they were keeping up towards their public image. At best they are doing whatever they think will get them the most money, more realistically they actually support this regressive bullshit. As a non-American I am so pissed at what a good portion of that country has voted for and those that stayed home instead of preventing this.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 hours ago

The oligarchs have paid their tithe to king Trump and feel like they are immune to consequences. So far they have been correct.

[–] yarr@feddit.nl 30 points 4 hours ago

LOL welcome to corporate America. The only reason they paid lip service to causes like you mention is because it was temporarily a pathway to more profit. Now that Trump is in office (or nearly so, anyway) they have read the room and realized these beliefs are actually a liability now. So, surprise! They dropped em like a rock in the pursuit of more profits. Never never never trust a corporation to do the right thing. They sometimes accidentally do it in the pursuit of profits, but tying your hopes and dreams to a large corporation is a foolish plan. THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU THEY CARE ABOUT THE MONEY IN YOUR WALLET.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 19 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah, it is absolutely crazy how much the tide has shifted with trump’s reelection. These so-called “woke” companies (it was always performative, but they performed for the more just side) have all turned 180 and dropped to their knees to kiss the ring.

And this is because of the very real feeling that trump will abuse his power and unconstitutionally stay in office. The guardrails seem to have come down, and these fuckers are rushing to get on the fascist’s good side.

That should alarm everyone, so I’ll say it again: these companies are positioning themselves on the side of fascism because they don’t think we can stop them anymore. They are making business decisions that bolster fascists because there’s a fuckin dollar in it.

With the power of these fucking megacorps behind the fascist movement, it’s like sticking a rocket engine on its ass.

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago

Something something 1930's Germany.

[–] FMT99@lemmy.world 9 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

That's not at all amazing. What's amazing is that a large number of people thought it was a great idea to hand over the power to decide what's true or not to private companies. When they rolled out this "content moderation" used mostly against Trump the political left was beside itself with joy. I remember the taunts of "haha it's a private company, they can publish whatever they want." So incredibly stupid and short sighted.

[–] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 hours ago

I think "thought it was a great idea to hand over the power [...] to private companies" is a misrepresentation. Some moderation was better than no moderation, but obviously "the political left"would have preferred regulation rather than self regulation.

What's the point you're making? That nothing should have been done?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de -4 points 40 minutes ago (3 children)

Seriously, this is how the media is spinning this? "Facebook now allows people to post that LGBT people are mentally ill"?

The default behavior of any social media platform is to allow people to say anything they want. That's what social media is for, to allow people to talk to each other. The things it doesn't allow are, and ought to be, exceptions. Facebook has now decided that one of these exceptions will be slightly loosened. I somehow fail to see the big deal in this.

[–] gingernate@sopuli.xyz 4 points 32 minutes ago

The paradox of tolerance is you have to be intolerant to intolerance

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 3 points 29 minutes ago (1 children)

The default behavior of any social media platform is to allow people to say anything they want.

False, moderation has existed since literally the beginning.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de -3 points 27 minutes ago* (last edited 26 minutes ago) (1 children)

That doesn't contradict what I'm saying ("default behavior"), and also moderation is different from censorship.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 3 points 25 minutes ago
[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 2 points 17 minutes ago (1 children)

You are an idiot.(*)

(*)See anything wrong with that statement? Think an order of magnitude worse and directed at minorities who already are targeted with hate, and you have te reason why such policies must exist.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 57 seconds ago

I wasn't actually expressing a substantive opinion on whether this policy change of Meta's is a good thing or bad thing. The rules there are as arbitrary as anywhere else on the Internet; this slight shift does not make much of a difference.

But moderation is different from censorship: if you (or I or anyone else) do not want to read people writing about LGBT people being mentally ill, or calling me an idiot (and I certainly don't, most of the time), or literally making any statement at all in the world, then none of us should have to. That doesn't mean people who want to say these things to each other (necessarily) need to be prevented from saying them to each other; there are arguments for that too, but it's a different issue.

load more comments
view more: next ›