this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
6 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59587 readers
3117 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (5 children)

So if YouTube is now serving up the ads directly to me, does that mean they're finally liable for the content of those ads? Can we have them investigated for all the malware, phishing, illegal hate speech, etc.?

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

No, because that would be communism, and that killed 100 million people. You also think genocide is bad, aren't you? And besides of that, if there were less regulations, you could make your own video platform to challenge Google's monopoly!

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (5 children)

i think people may have missed that you're not serious

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

The problem with pretending to be a dumbass on the Internet, is it's almost impossible to outdo the professionals.

[–] Badland9085@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

It’s not possible for everyone to just tell if it’s supposed to be sarcasm. ADHD makes it hard. A bad day makes it hard. A tiring day makes it hard.

The downside of the misunderstanding isn’t just downvotes. It’s possibly a proliferation of misinformation and an impression that there are people who DO think that way.

Being not serious while saying something grim is not a globally understood culture either. It’s more common and acceptable in the Western world as a joke.

So… call it accessibility, but it’s just more approachable for everyone to just put an “/s”.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Well... Communism is directly responsible for multiple famines that killed into the hundreds of millions. Then there are the inevitable purges that have taken millions of lives and hosts of terrors as well.

You're free to dispute history if you need to, and claim that theoretically communism is nice, but in practice, history tells us that living under communism reaaaalllyy sucks.

[–] Teils13@lemmy.eco.br 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

There are people here not from western europe or north america, we felt all of that and beyond with capitalism too. Do you think Asia and Africa, who received aid and support from the soviet union to free themselves from capitalist Europeans will fall for that ? Where did you arrive at ''multiple famines that killed into the hundreds of millions" ? Even the soviet famines of 1930s and chinese great famine 'only' killed at maximum intervals of estimation 9 and 50 millions each, and this article over-viewing all atrocities maxes at 150 million, with a low 10-20 million estimation, not hundreds of millions in famines alone.

Are you paraphrasing that 'Black Book of Communism' shtick ? It is a propaganda tool not valid in actual academic research, even by liberals that are not fraudsters, because the author twists every single communist countries-adjacent deaths as ''mass killing caused by communism'', including brilliant takes like total number of abortions (ex: France, that practices 250.000 abortions per year must be enraged with a capitalist regime that killed 5 million people only in the 21st century !) and all WW2 eastern front deaths (so both the nazi germans and allies that invaded USSR and USSR soldiers and civilians killed count as 'killed by communism').

Last but not least, the USSR had much higher GDP per capita and living standards than the average third world capitalist country (which is where the demographic majority of capitalist people live), so even if the USSR could not equate Switzerland, they achieved a good quality of life better than the world average.

Last but not least, the USSR had much higher GDP per capita and living standards than the average third world capitalist country (which is where the demographic majority of capitalist people live), so even if the USSR could not equate Switzerland, they achieved a good quality of life better than the world average.

why would this be relevant? The US had a higher per capita GDP than the USSR and it was capitalist, surely that means that capitalism would be better here?

TBF, stalinism wasn't really communism, it was more authoritarianism than anything, but.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

that's like saying capitalism is directly responsible for school shootings because it happens all the time in the US. but no one's dumb enough to claim that because that's not how things work.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

well, technically the USSR exported lots and lots of grain during the 30s famine. So.

It's still not perfect, but you could argue there was mismanagement there.

[–] anzo@programming.dev -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This kind of messages should have a "/s" attached. IMHO, that's just proper Netiquette.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 month ago

I kind of inferred the /s by the end of the post, but respect that such inference isn't universal. Also there are many /s comments that I wouldn't infer if it wasn't explicit.

[–] shades@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago

Great, now it's Russian roulette every time you hit that pause button. ¡BOOM ZERODAY MALWARE!

[–] dan@upvote.au 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

No, at least not in the USA. They're still protected under Section 230, which makes them immune from liability of third-party content on their platform.

now serving up the ads directly to me

What do you think they were doing before? 🤔

[–] Balthazar@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 months ago

Does anybody know how this will affect the EU?

[–] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

This is a good question.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

no because of sec 230 and publisher rights, they were still directly serving them before, the only difference now is that it's tied into the video stream directly, rather than broken out as a second one.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

In the past they have always said that they aren't transmitting the content and so it's the responsibility of the transmitter of the data. Now the content at least appears to be coming from youtube not the advertisers. So I'm curious if that's enough to make it fall under section 230 which would require that they make a good faith effort to remove "objectionable" content.