526
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 18 points 1 week ago

I don't think they are evil. A bunch of people with good intentions who didn't understand the problem are trying to solve it with a gut feeling rather than analysis and evidence. It's really disappoi ting that they would waste so much of our time and money like this.

[-] Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Former Facebook higher ups have gone on the record to say the Facebook uses destructive algorithms to keep people hooked, they know exactly what they are doing and don't care how it affects us as long as they can squeeze more info from us for more profit. Thinking Silicon Valley tech billionaires actually care about you? Bro, you need to wake up.

[-] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 6 points 1 week ago

We're talking about Australian legislation not social media itself. The problem is real, the legislation is ineffective and poorly implemented. Calling the legislation evil is a stretch. Modern social media is most certainly evil.

[-] Deceptichum@quokk.au 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The “good intention” was the packaging. The real intent was population control.

[-] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

The packaging was just a taster for what's to come, I.e. discrimination leading to fascism.

Good intentions without the spirit of cooperation or respect for consent is still evil.

The main problem with all of these internet surveillance tools being marketed as ways to protect children is that people are engaging with them on that basis.

As far as I'm concerned they haven't done anything to establish that they actually intend to protect children or that this is a reasonable way to do it. This seems like a solution to a different problem that ignores all of the problems it creates.

Parents should be responsible for their children. A random website creator shouldn't have to be responsible for your children.

Websites aren't stores where people walk in off of a public street. They are services that people reach out to and engage with specifically and intentionally. If we can address the non-consensual non-intentionality part of internet tracking and surveillance a lot of this stuff goes away. So maybe rather than regulating the website to protect your children we should be regulating the website to protect consent.

[-] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week ago

I don't agree that the legislators left the spirit of cooperation or respect for consent out because they are evil, I think they left them out because they are ignorant. I think they are inexperienced with both technology and social media and have failed to appropriately engage people that might have helped them come up with a functional solution rather than an ineffective brute force.

I do however agree with everything else you've said above.

And those guys are being led on by the evils.

[-] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago

Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2026
526 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

83785 readers
2500 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