this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
133 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59295 readers
5000 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
top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

It's pretty much always been this way (that doesn't mean it's acceptable though). South Park lampooned it like a decade ago with the Human Cent-iPad episode where Kyle agreed to the Apple ToS without reading it, and he unknowingly agreed to allow Apple to sew him ass to mouth with other people that agreed.

[–] Substance_P@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Surveillance capitalism is now the main goal of big tech and really this article outlines some great points. The psychology of the reward system we desire when using social media is now becoming a talking point with law makers, however I am worried any laws made to curb these companies will result in simply eroding our privacy more.

Some great points here, shedding light on how companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple are making money from our data through (IoT) technology.

They’re not only selling us devices infused with their apps, but they’re also using our data to continually profit. As users we are like data farms, working for free in their schemes to suck up our privacy and us, the consumer, only pays for this intrusion.

It’s a double-dip way of making money off of us for sure, but I was surprised to find out in the end that the article was an ad for an independent operating system and device manufacturer. It's a move in the right direction of course.