this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2025
377 points (93.7% liked)

Technology

74407 readers
2862 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

I’m down for a breakup but I don’t see how we could twist this into illegality.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 10 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

You could probably make it illegal to alter people's videos without their explicit consent. But also the Republicans have shown us that laws mean what the people in charge want

[–] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 9 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

without their explicit consent.

By signing up to this service you agree to allow us to alter or modify your content as we require for efficient operation or to increase content engagement

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

You can make that kind of thing illegal. I think "shrink wrap eulas" are dubious. Rule that fine print with a bunch of other stuff doesn't count as explicit. Like there are rules now about cookie acceptance that has changed how the web works, and most sites don't try to hide the cookie thing because that's against the rules.

[–] hazl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

We wouldn't need so many damn laws to prevent shitty companies from doing shitty things if we could just become the kind of society that doesn't support shitty companies. The cookie thing is a great example of how a well–intentioned regulation made the internet an even more irritating place to be.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I suppose. But have you tried to get people to care about things? It's stupid hard. I can't get most of my friends to stop using Twitter, which is a pretty low stakes change. Nevermind something like "eat less meat" or "walk instead of drive sometimes"

If you can make people care, you can solve a lot of problems

[–] hazl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 hour ago

I have tried, and writing my last comment actually brought a lot of repressed rage out. I've been too lenient on my friends and family who continue to use things like Facebook and X, because I didn't want to be that opinionated, ideological snore who won't shut up about how Facebook is the world's most prolific purveyor of hate speech, propping up the Trump administration, Israel, LGBT hate groups, the Rohingya genocide, housing discrimination, abortion witch hunts, blah blah blah. But the thing is that these are true things, and people should be appalled enough to never touch a Meta product again, even if it means teaching an elderly family member to learn a new group messaging app.

So I'm back to being a loudmouth bitch who scolds people for using Facebook. And X. But I probably don't stand a chance with Google.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I kinda doubt you’d be able to write a law that would actually have the effect you’re looking for. In the case of what you just wrote, all YouTube would need to do is write into their ToS that by uploading to their platform you’ve given them explicit permission to alter the video for purposes of storage space or increasing/decreasing quality.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 3 points 20 hours ago

I think you're under estimating what the law can do, probably because most of the time it's used to bolster rich assholes.

[–] jonesey71@lemmus.org 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

It might not be currently illegal but I think there should be a law defining "crimes against society" that only applies to corporations and politicians. It could be vague like "disorderly conduct" but just for corpos and politicians and would include things like lying to the public and could have punishments like corpos losing their business license (death) and banishment to the moon/sun for politicians.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 18 hours ago

Overly vague laws are never a good thing.