this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
380 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

84199 readers
3340 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
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
380
U.S. companies back Sam Altman’s World ID even as much of the world pushes back (restofworld.org)
submitted 17 hours ago by Deep@mander.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The biometric ID project has been halted and investigated in multiple countries, but it recently partnered with Tinder, Zoom, and Docusign to verify users.

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] night_petal@piefed.social 14 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I can avoid pretty much any tech company by simply not using the product. Docusign, however, is fucking everwhere in modern US life. I've had local government agencies advertise a certain wait period etc. which is dependent on using Docusign on their website, otherwise there is a weeks (or months) long delay on them mailing things you have to sign because why would they ever print them in the office? Based on the nature of the company, I am not surprised, but them being onboard will make bureaucracy that everyone has to deal with immensely more annoying if you opt out of using their products.

[–] utopiah@lemmy.world 3 points 15 minutes ago* (last edited 15 minutes ago) (1 children)

FWIW I had to use an equivalent which didn't work on my setup. I emailed the company, they said try this, try that, which I did, still no dice. They emailed me a form to print, sign, take a photo of, and email them back. I did and the 3rd party that relied on their service was notified.

So... it's OK to be "annoying" with this kind of services if it doesn't work respective of your setup itself respective of your concerns.

I'm not saying it will also work, or that it's efficient, just that it's a possibility.

[–] night_petal@piefed.social 1 points 2 minutes ago

Yeah, that's true. It does however even pop up in doctors offices, or anything legally binding. Things where the your appointment will be ruined if you don't sign digitally.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

this is fitting

1000002798

remember all the times I said "AI is fascism"?

is it getting clearer now?

[–] RoddyStiggs@lemmy.blahaj.zone 32 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Fuck all the way off with that shit

[–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 1 points 33 minutes ago

I could not have said it better 👏💯

[–] Themosthighstrange@lemmy.world 18 points 10 hours ago

I'm surprised he didn't name it Mark of the Beast instead, while claiming the pope is the real antichrist.

[–] TwinTitans@lemmy.world 19 points 12 hours ago

LOL. nope.

[–] Insekticus@aussie.zone 149 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I'm not doing that. Go fuck yourselves.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 68 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

The problem is companies like docusign you might not have a choice not to use it, for a job for instance. This is pernicious, and will force us to hand over even more of our information, accepting a thousand page terms of service to do necessary tasks, with no government protection (none enforced even when there,) to any significant degree.

[–] Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 38 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

In sane places, large terms of service are unenforceable due to the lack of reasonable expectation that they were read and understood. The USA is just a dystopic cesspool of anti-consumerism.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 18 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Most of such terms were unenforceable in the US too, until around 2001 or so, and it just got worse from there. The supreme court made it official in the 10's sometime if I recall, endorsing even making consumers or employees sign away their rights to sue to either buy something or get hired.

All that wage theft from minimum wage workers, which exploded in the bush years, happened with employees unable to sue, instead only being able to bring a binding arbitration suit of the employer's choosing. And knowing them they would make the claimant pay a big filing fee to start the process.

It also used to be that if one part of such a contract was found to be illegal, the entire thing would be thrown out, not any more.

[–] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

It also used to be that if one part of such a contract was found to be illegal, the entire thing would be thrown out, not any more.

Not necessarily.

A contract is supposed to be a mutually-beneficial arrangement. I sell you a car for its market value. I work for you for a market price on my time for the position and my expertise.

If there's a small mistake both sides are willing to amend - there probably won't even be a suit.

Even if there is a suit, most places' laws prefer nudging toe contract to the side "less off" in such cases.

Only when there are unreasonable demands by one side, or the contract is so one-sided it can't be amended is when it gets thrown out completely.

Which is supposed to be almost never.

Therefore, I don't think the rules themselves changed as much as the goalposts and the reasonableness window have. Quality of life and purchase power is decreasing steadily basically since Reagan.

Contemporary EULAs are taken as acceptable and a fact of life when even 10 years ago T&Cs were laughed at which were much less unreasonable in comparison.

Other types of contracts follow the same general direction, with employment ones being among the absolute worst.

[–] SaintNectar@lemmy.zip 25 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Oh god.. They really want to track every humans on this planet. And we all know for what purposes

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 24 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

They already do. They just want to make it easier

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

And also have the ability to turn off people's legal existence when they get up to too much anti-corporate shenanigans.

[–] Alloi@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

"Unperson"

[–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 1 points 32 minutes ago* (last edited 31 minutes ago)

Anti-citizen one, you are accused of multiple anti-civil violations. Wait for civil protection teams in the submission position.

[–] SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 96 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

An MIT Technology Review investigation reveals World’s unethical practices when onboarding test users across Africa and Asia, including deceptive marketing practices. The investigation also says that World was gathering personal data beyond iris scans, including heartbeat, breathing, and other vital signs, and doing so without obtaining meaningful informed consent.

Insane. When businesses are building massive systems to identify and track the citizenry, the government should step in and stomp it out. Instead, the government is mandating that it proceeds.

The system is functioning as expected. The system must be destroyed.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 4 points 3 hours ago

That's the neat part when you blur the lines between the government and the private sector. So-called leaders who are interested in power, control, and "winning" more than upholding their oaths of office can just use the private sector to do the things the government is restricted from doing. Then when their businesses can't compete on their own, they can lean on the legal + force options the government has.

I'm starting to think this habit we have of electing selfish sociopathic bad-faith actors to powerful positions of service is less than optimal.

[–] stumu415@lemmy.zip 28 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

The US can do whatever they want in their country but leave the rest of us alone. We're actually doing much better without you. It would be even better if you stopped interfering ie start an illegal war, in the name of Israel. Than we can all move on without the US.

[–] terabyterex@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 25 minutes ago) (1 children)

the problem is, a lot of shitty laws are passing in europe (looking at you france) but havent made it through our system yet. time will tell.

[–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 1 points 30 minutes ago

That's true, the fuckery is strong here too and it requires a lot of pressure to hold it back.

[–] IllNess@infosec.pub 8 points 12 hours ago (4 children)

Canada and Mexico should combine forces and take over the US.

Give Hawaii back to the native Hawaiians.

Canada takes Alaska.

Mexico takes Texas and New Mexico and detain all the pro ICE fascists.

[–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 1 points 29 minutes ago

And let Cuba be a normal state again that can trade freely with the world.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 10 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Canada and Mexico should combine forces and take over the US.

Why the fuck would we do that. We have enough dumb fat violent racists.

[–] IllNess@infosec.pub 4 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Canada world police > United States world police

[–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 1 points 28 minutes ago

UN world police based on a wide mandate. Yes not as effective but the only way to real peace.

[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 hours ago

No no no that's not how it works

[–] HalfSalesman@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

I would be so happy to be living in a part of Canada.

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

You’re officially invited.

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 52 points 17 hours ago

Fuck off, Sam

[–] kaiyo@piefed.ca 22 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

From the country so adament against a nationwide ID, this is rich

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

Oh you misunderstood, nationwide IDs are the mark of the beast.

Being forced to give your biometric data to a company trying to create artificial consciousness? That's just capitalism baby.

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 24 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

US: Are we the bad guys?

Morgan Freeman: It was at that moment that the people realized they were.

[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 5 points 11 hours ago

No, they didn't answer the question; they only asked it. Gotta see the follow-through. This makes me think of the Palantir articles about how in reality their employees have been annoyed about being painted as bad guys, instead of genuinely questioning themselves.

[–] br0da@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago

Again, we don’t have to use any of this. There are alternatives to all of those products.

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 10 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Hold up? I'm going to need to verify to use zoom, now? Wtf for?

[–] RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip 11 points 13 hours ago

So they can have more valuable , more personal data.

[–] LordMayor@piefed.social 9 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Uhm, no.

This is one of those technologies that CEOs hear about and think would be great for their business. But, they don’t consider that nobody wants to fucking do this.

[–] Bluegrass_Addict@lemmy.ca 7 points 14 hours ago

they don't care... big difference.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago

Wake up and smell the dystopia. It's cooking, and if you don't like how it smells, just wait until you have to eat it.

[–] Lanske@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

/ sarcasm on All companies who respect your privacy / sarcasm off