this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
469 points (94.8% liked)

Technology

59708 readers
2383 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
 

YouTube’s Loaded With EV Disinformation::When it comes to articles on a website like CleanTechnica, there are two kinds of articles. First, there are the ... [continued]

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 218 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)

YouTube’s loaded with disinformation about everything. Especially egregious are the awful ads YouTube runs about scammy health cures and devices.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 65 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Which is why we need downvote buttons by default for those videos. People say it's unnecessary, but you at least have to let the upvotes go to zero if there are that many downvotes.

[–] silverbax@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago

Only YouTube says downvotes are unnecessary, users want them back and never wanted them removed.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We need laws that make it illegal to disinform people for profit.

[–] silverbax@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There are, and have been, but Republicans constantly work to repeal them, calling it 'deregulation'.

Businesses would sell you cyanide and call it a weight-loss miracle cure if the laws didn't prevent it.

[–] TheOSINTguy@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

"Use this eye mask to protect you from 5g while you sleep" yes, such a thing existed, and it was removed from amazon for putting out harmful radiation.

[–] scytale@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Not just ads, but actual content creators themselves. If a channel has someone calling themselves "Dr." and giving out medical advice, 99% they are a chiropractor.

[–] johnyrocket@feddit.ch 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And don't forget that mr Beast is gifting all his subscribers 100$ if you just send a pic of your social security card

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 75 points 1 year ago (6 children)

To be fair EVs only solve the tail pipe emission problem of cars and not like the 50 others. It's would be much better to focus on public transit and pedestrian and bike infrastructure, that solves more issues and is accessible to everyone.

[–] splonglo@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago (12 children)

They solve tailpipe emissions AND all the emissions associated with mining, refining and transporting the fuel - which is enormous and usually left out of the calculations. Public transportation / walkable infrastructure is god-tier but lots of people live away from dense neighbourhoods. Ev's are not a golden bullet solution to climate change but they're pretty good and neither is anything else. It makes sense to attack the issue from as many angles as possible instead of getting all tunnel-vision about one particular solution.

[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

AND all the emissions associated with mining, refining and transporting the fuel

Except it's nowhere near that simple. Manufacturing and shipping batteries is hardly a clean process. And the impact of the fuel is dependent upon the method used to generate the electricity, and both in the US and globally fossil fuels are still used widely for that.

Plus a lot of the pollution and carbon generation is virtually identical for personal vehicles regardless of how it's powered. You still have tires that wear, tons of plastics and fluids (even EV's need lubrication), and of course all of the metals involved. Then of course there is road infrastructure: thousands upon thousands of miles of asphalt and concrete separating neighborhoods and habitats. Acres upon acres of impermeable pavement soaking up heat and occupying valuable space that could be used for something more productive.

EV's are better than ICE options because they at least will get greener as the electrical grid does, but still have the same fundamental issues that all personal vehicles do. You could add in bil-diesel and hydrogen cars too. It's saving pennies when things like better public transportation and more walkable cities saves pounds.

[–] splonglo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The pollution from EVs is far lower than ICEs even if they are powered by 100% coal - the absolute worst electricity source. This is because a large generator is inherently more efficient than lots of small ones simply due to the efficiency of scale. And most grids are far cleaner - the UK uses almost ZERO coal.

The problems that you've just described are real and I support your solutions to them - but they apply to the entirety of modern industrial society. Public investment should absolutely go to these things, but since people are spending their private money on EVs ( which in many cases makes economic sense AND are better on emissions ) , why push against that? They are two totally different revenue streams. Spending on one doesn't detract from the other. A private individual can't buy a bus. American suburbia is not going to become walkable any time soon.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] MaxPower@feddit.de 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

To be fair EVs only solve the tail pipe emission problem

Gotta start somewhere. At least I can say that I'm part of the solution and that I am not one of the negative nellies who don't do squat because they cannot find the ONE solution that solves everything.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

gotta start somewhere

Then start with vastly increasing the amount of bicycle Infrastructure so that people can safely use their bike to go to schools, work, home, buy groceries. Give subsidies to buy bikes for even less money than they cost anyway, increase taxes on shit cars like pick tricks that nobody needs in a city setting

Invest heavily in public transportation. Make busses actually useful, start making an actual rail infrastructure in the US instead of... Whatever that turtle crap is you have now.

Same for walking, which would require overhauling urbanisation laws, granted, but still, that would also make your cities actually nice to live in.

If you think that all is an impossibly expensive job then please be reminded that gasoline is heavily subsidized and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure costs pennies on the dollar compared to car infrastructure.

Biggest issue is stopping the oil and car manufacturer lobbyists who will all stop all of this. Why have nice cities that make big money and recover your environment if thateans that a couple of rich guys will get less rich?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (20 children)

It's would be much better to focus on public transit and pedestrian and bike infrastructure, that solves more issues and is accessible to everyone.

Or both...?

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Yeah this sort of either or mentality and that “perfect is the enemy of good” is an absurd argument.

Make things better if even a little and iterate. At least you’re moving in the right direction.

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JdW@lemmy.world 72 points 1 year ago (1 children)

youtube's loaded with ~~EV~~ disinformation...

In other news, sky's still blue.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Twitter isn't blue anymore. It's black like Elon Musk's heart.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Aurelius@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wonder who is funding such efforts 🤔

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not sure either, I'll have to think about it while I drink my coke

[–] einlander@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Verification can accepted.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just in case my intended joke was missed:

Koch is pronounced like coke. Koch Industries is a megacorp involved in fossil fuel production and related manufacturing. The Kochs have a long history of donating millions every year to Republican politicians. They also engage in a LOT of astroturfing.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Huh, I figured you were referencing this.

[–] cmgvd3lw@discuss.tchncs.de 29 points 1 year ago (28 children)

I am against cars getting more like everyday electronic gadgets. Why do you need a selfie camera inside it? Also who attends zoom calls in it? Evs are notorious for doing so. Not to mention all the privacy concerns over the data these smartcars collect.

[–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

At an EV car showroom the other day, one of the big main focus function of the car that the salesman tried to pitch was "you can browse Amazon or do shopping online on the infotainment system". Also, you have to pay for a subscription to "unlock " the top speed and torque.

This is not the USA, so maybe it's just a thing in my country.

[–] TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

BMW is already doing the subscription thing for certain features. Mercedes too.

[–] meekah@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Afaik they pulled back on some of those

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

EV marketing is also full of misinformation, like net zero.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hate that grotesque faces are a clickbait technique.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Only on EV? It's hard to find reliable informacion between 99% influencer crap and bullshit. YT is good for music and some movies which someone had uploaded, little else.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

There's plenty of good quality content on YouTube but you actually have to subscribe to the good stuff. If you would like exclusively on the recommended videos you'll watch utter crap

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

YouTube used to be good for music until they put 2 ads before AND after EVERY VIDEO!

I know this comes off as "old man yelling at clouds" but there used to be a time when there were NO ads on YouTube. You could make an entire playlist of songs without having to hear a single ad.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FLX@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Fuck google seriously. The fact that these videos are not deleted and they don't detect all these obviously fake comments tells a lot.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not surprising considering it's the biggest shilling platform currently available. Low price of entry and easy way to reach masses combined with plenty of people with large following and questionable morals... you can push pretty much any idea and agenda. But good thing they don't allow swearing. That's just too much.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Any idiot with a camera can put videos on YT so I'm not surprised. There's misinformation about literally everything on there or any other platform that doesn't restrict who can post. When the hell did news become nothing more than stating the obvious?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›