this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
784 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

58067 readers
4145 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 191 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Yeah it's truly awful.

The worst part is how disingenuous it is. It clearly exists because Google:

  1. Wants to circumvent ad-blockers since ads are its primary business model, and
  2. Link butts in chairs more closely to web browsers so they can sell better advertisement targeting.

If they just said they were doing it because they're an advertising company and they need better ads targeted to people, at least they would have the benefit of honesty. And in that case you might actually get some big sites on-board; like if a site can explicitly say "I need to recoup hosting fees and the only way for me to do that is targeted advertising and that makes this easier/better" there's actually a value proposition there.

But don't pretend this is for the benefit of consumers or the Internet overall, and definitely don't cloak your meaning behind vague platitudes about identity authenticity.

[–] [email protected] 85 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Wouldn’t it be sick if once your company got up to a net worth of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS you’d just stop trying to shoehorn in new ways to make profit?

[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's comically perverted and epicly sad that leaders with power in society don't stop this kind of thing.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I've been questioning whether the current implementation of democracy can work in a modern world, where corporate entities can grow beyond the size of government.

As long as the people is represented by a smaller subset of the people, corporations wont need to please the people. Only the representatives. The same way that in the US, the electoral college means your vote technically doesn't have direct power, there's a disconnect between people voting for not getting screwed, and that sentiment actually becoming law.

[–] ItsMeSpez 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like taxation without representation to me.

[–] YourAvgMortal 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wasn’t there a proposal to let companies vote in Delaware not too long ago? Democracy would truly only apply for the rich at that point

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres 1 points 1 year ago

There’s localities in Delaware now where corporations can vote. The idea is supposed to be that non-resident property owners (usually LLCs for people’s vacation homes) should have a say in laws that govern the town but they sure as fuck aren’t letting seasonal workers vote.

[–] joel_feila 0 points 1 year ago

Yu kind of can't. Usa has legal bribes and no country has the power and spine to break up monopolies

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

I'm always disappointed that this kind of stuff gets no interest from the mainstream media. Nearly everyone in developed countries interacts with the internet and thus they should all care

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)