this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
547 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

60545 readers
6300 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
[–] Geobloke@lemm.ee 9 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

I hate community notes, it's a cost free way of fact checking with no accountability.

I also hate these big international tech companies. Forget too big to fail, these are too big to change. We are all techno peasants and they are our tech lords

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 3 points 45 minutes ago

I hate community notes, it’s a cost free way of fact checking with no accountability.

I don't think it's necessarily bad, but it can be harmful if done on a platform that has a significant skew in its political leanings, because it can then lead to the assumption that posts must be true because they were "fact checked" even if the fact check was actually just one of the 9:1 ratio of users that already believes that one thing.

However, on platforms that have more general, less biased overall userbases, such as YouTube, a community notes system can be helpful, because it directly changes the platform incentives and design.

I like to come at this from the understanding that the way a platform is designed influences how it is used and perceived by users. When you add a like button but not a dislike button, you only incentivize positive fleeting interactions with posts, while relegating stronger negative opinions to the comments, for instance. (see: Twitter)

If a platform integrates community notes, that not only elevates content that had any effort at all made to fact check it (as opposed to none at all) but it also means that, to get a community note, somebody must at least attempt to verify the truth. And if someone does that, then statistically speaking, there's at least a slightly higher likelihood that the truth is made apparent in that community note than if none existed to incentivize someone to fact check in the first place.

Again, this doesn't work in all scenarios, nor is it always a good decision to add depending on a platform's current design and general demographic political leanings, but I do think it can be valuable in some cases. (This also heavily depends on who is allowed access to create the community notes, of course)

[–] OceanSoap@lemmy.ml 1 points 48 minutes ago

Who holds fact-checking companies accountable?

[–] PeroBasta@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

I wonder how it will work and how can be enforced. Weekly I can easily find non fact checked article on "respectable" newspaper.

If its the newspaper themselves that prioritize click baiting over fact checking, I don't know how can we ask Google or meta to fact check their userbase

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

God I hope this happens, it will be absolutely hilarious when the gcp services on which the EU infraestructure for telecommunications, research and development, industry, transportation, banking, agriculture, logistics and health is built up, crashes burning to the ground.

[–] HaiZhung@feddit.org 28 points 6 hours ago

I get the sentiment, who doesn’t want to dunk on Google?

But the headline is needlessly inflammatory. There is no law yet; and google essentially is saying please please don’t implement it, it totally doesn’t make sense.

Don’t get me wrong, the EU should still implement it. And once it is law; Google will also comply.

[–] ToucheGoodSir@lemy.lol -3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Gigachad move on googles part. Who wins, the EU or google?

[–] TseseJuer@lemmy.world 1 points 27 minutes ago

oligarchs win and you die. fin

[–] MaxPow3r11@lemmy.world 67 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Damn.

Wish the rest of us could just ignore all laws & not face any consequences.

What a fucking joke this entire system is.

[–] OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml 18 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

They don't have a problem giving someone 100 years for a quarter bag of weed though. For a first time offense.

[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 3 points 5 hours ago

Oh that was long ago. it's for not having a baby if you're female now. Megacorps run usa and now the worst (which is best for some reason) ceo in the history of man will again be president and continue the clear path to government dismantling

[–] timestatic@feddit.org 56 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Fine the heck out of them then. If they don't pay the fine ban em. Plenty of alternatives out there. More competition in the search engine market would be better anyways.

Not too big of a fan of banning companies as the hurdles should be decently high... Especially if many people rely on their service but if they won't comply with our jurisdiction long term I see this as the only option as fees can not be order of business to pay

[–] HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 8 hours ago

Sovereign citizens are really getting out of hand. Oh wait it's google.

[–] DicJacobus@lemmy.world 38 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Didn't a year ago or so, Some European lawmaker made a vague hint in support of something that involved regulations on social media, and Elon replied "go fuck yourself" verbatem?

Play hardball, or surrender and give them what they want. there's no compromise or middle ground with these techbro fascists

[–] qx128@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago

Commence operation “find out”!

[–] xenomor@lemmy.world 62 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Given that we are going full authoritarian fascist now, perhaps the EU should ban Google, given the US tik tok precedent.

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 24 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

What a twist. In the 90s, the internet forced countries to wake up to the new modern era. It was a combination of American companies wanting both to expand and provide goodwill.

And now, this new era is going to tell American companies to fuck off.

[–] Toribor@corndog.social 12 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Democracies around the world rightly shouldn't tolerate the blatant corruption and manipulative business practice of American tech companies.

[–] ne0n@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

America itself seems fine with it.

Oh wait, you said Democracies right. My bad.

[–] Cyber@feddit.uk 6 points 8 hours ago

So, another “cookie banner” coming then, but this one says: “facts not checked”

[–] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

This is definitely to avoid the ire of fuhrer trump. It's also coincidence that meta is abandoning fact checking right before the new administration

He will sic the dogs of regulation on them if they don't dance to his tune

[–] DukeHawthorne@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago

I want to live in a world where the EU bans Google, but we all know the EU will just roll over and accept this.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 11 hours ago

wish the eu would just actually ban american companies there is really no need for them anyway

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee 21 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Fascism is good for business.

[–] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 1 points 5 hours ago

🌎🧑‍🚀🔫🧑‍🚀

[–] Foni@lemm.ee 238 points 20 hours ago (29 children)

In other words, a company, acting on behalf of its own shareholders, tells a government, which represents 100% of the citizens in a given territory, to shove its legislation where the sun doesn’t shine. And not only is this not inherently absurd, but it also stands a significant chance of succeeding in getting the government to comply.

load more comments (29 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›