this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2025
2 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

74073 readers
2818 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
L4s@hackingne.ws
2
UK government suggests deleting files to save water (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 days ago by some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Sorta like how corporations pushed recycling onto the public to deflect from their own culpability for pollution. Why would we regulate the companies building huge data centers when we can get average people to absorb the cost? It's not like they're making obscene profits while laying off untold thousands.

I mean, if that was the case, sure, let's have them pay to clean up the waste they generate. But have you seen NVIDIA, Microsoft, or Meta lately? These companies are barely staying in business. Their CEOs can hardly afford to ride the bus to work. Let's cut them a break.

TLDR: It's your fault the earth is dying because you horde emails.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

OP hit the nail on the head. This is once again shifting the blame (and guilt) onto individuals who even collectively have fuck-all impact on the problem in question.

The worst of it is, some people will believe this shit.

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What’s even more infuriating is the numbers of people who fail to recognize that all of these companies sell these goods and services to consumers and it is those consumers who can reduce the demand.

[–] machiavellian@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There was/is a demand for slavery. Should we wait for these people to realize that maybe owning slaves is not okay and morally wrong? Or should we just outright ban slavery and not give two fucks how "the market forces" view such action? You tell me.

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That’s a false equivalence.

[–] machiavellian@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

Your argument is, correct me if I'm wrong, that the demand for product X always necessetates its production/supply and that supply will cease when there is no more demand.

A valid argument based on basic market economic principles.

I argue that there are times, when the demand for something does not outweigh the cost incurred (by the society) from the production and supply of a product. Meaning there are cases, such as this one, when it is almost impossible to decrease demand and thus influence the production which in turn would decrease the cost incurred by the society. In my view, the State has to protect foremost its citizenry, not ginormous enterprises. If this protection means going against "market forces", then so be it.

Both "products" cause harm to society while only a few benefit, so no, it was not a false equivalence.

But then again, I could be mistaken and feel free to correct me on anything. :))