mang0

Sounds good to me! With no mention of having to limit our internet usage.

You don't have the power to decarbonize all electricity or to create and enforce laws to reduce the rate of e-waste. Until this changes, you have the power to limit your bandwidth usage, which is something that would result in less e-waste and less energy usage (and inherently less carbon emissions since all electricity isn't decarbonized). You're essentially saying "the paper says you can fix the problem in the future so I don't give a fuck about the problem now", which is not very bright.

And if reducing bandwidth waste really were that important, it would have go both ways anyway, with the providers optimising their content (probably forced to do so by regulations in some way).

My god. This might be the most naive thing I've ever read. This would be like saying "if carbon emissions were really that bad, oil and coal would be illegal". Guess what? The climate will be (and has already been) irreversibly damaged if we don't drastically reduce the amount of carbon fuel being used and no regulations have successfully come close to getting the necessary drastic reduction. Turns out everything that's bad doesn't magically get solved by regulations, especially when rich companies which rely on e.g. carbon fuel and bandwidth have major influence over politics due to their massive amount of resources.

Saying 4channers suck is very similar to saying Lemmy users suck. Depends on board and instance respectively.

The payment companies which gave way were American.

Truly impressive how little america cares about its citizens.

You do realize that it's harder to move to renewables if the energy required keeps increasing? Higher bandwidth usage requires expansion of internet infrastructure to account for peak usage which increases the amount of energy used, not only for the manufactured hardware (which will likely turn to e-waste at some point) but also to keep the infrastructure running. I highly recommend reading research about the sustainability of the internet.

Youtube and tiktok are video platforms (instagram turned into one some years after creation). Telling them to stop having videos is equivalent to saying they should cease to exist. Spotify is a music streaming platform. Telling them to stop having videos has a minimal impact on their business model, which is evident by the fact that Spotify was widely successful before they started including videos.

Fair enough. I imagine that it's typically women who get exploited the most but men aren't exluded

Please explain to me how I ignored it? This is Twitter style of "you said you like pancakes? That means you hate waffles!"

Never claimed otherwise

True. The group pressuring the payment companies were originally a christian group. They can indeed be very prude

Shouldn't porn games be preferred to actual porn? Less risk of women being sexually exploited when making software?