this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
894 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

69702 readers
3159 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Therobohour@lemmy.world 27 points 1 hour ago

That's 0% surprising. FB had always been about making girls feel bad. It's in its sorce code

[–] k0e3@lemmy.ca 31 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

TIL teen girls still used Facebook.

[–] guywithoutaname@lemm.ee 23 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Instagram too according to the article.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 41 minutes ago

I get Instagram (lots of creative types there), Facebook is a bit surprising though.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 28 points 4 hours ago

Goddam I had to read that headline 3 times before I understood the implication!
That is outright disgusting, and such practices ought to be outlawed.
Or as Trump would say, very cool and very legal way to make money.

[–] Epzillon@lemmy.world 43 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Happy I got AdNauseam after uBlock Origin. Deleted my facebook a year ago, shit is an AI slopfest built upon the greed and manipulation of every part of the chain. Defcon 31 has a good talk that brings this up. "Disenshittify or die" by Cory Doctrow, cann recommend to watch.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 13 points 5 hours ago

I support the use of AdNauseam. Not sure if there are any more extreme alternatives, I now choose to be actively hostile towards advertising/tracking rather than just passively blocking it.

[–] vegetvs@kbin.earth 62 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

Teenagers should not be on social media. I rest my case.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

That's sounds like blaming teens for the actions of the adults behind Facebook.

[–] vegetvs@kbin.earth 11 points 1 hour ago

That's a fallacy. Teenagers are the victims here. So I'm obviously blaming greedy corporations, lack of good parenting and proper regulation from authorities.

[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 33 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Not just teenagers. Facebook and quite a few others should outright be banned. Not only they are scientifically proven to be a mental health catastrophe and a political threat to democracy, it's also pretty clear now that both these things are part of their design, not bugs or unintended emerging properties.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 3 points 1 hour ago

Facebook actively contributed to the genocide in Myanmar, and did basically nothing about it because they didnt want to hire more moderators that spoke the language, so that they could adequately remove pro-genocidal content

[–] Someone8765210932@lemmy.world 12 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Ok, but the genie is already out of the bottle. Arguing like this is kinda pointless.

I don't think it will be possible to get them off social media (or the internet in general), so you need to find ways to make it work.

E.g. minors can not be advertised to, no algorithmic content, no doom-scrolling, and heightened data protection. I think teenager should get access to as much as possible to reduce the "risk" of them trying to go around it. "Their" version of social media might even be the superior one in the end.

If the world wasn't on fire at the moment, people could calmly discuss possible solutions and propose laws in every country to actually protect their children from e.g. the stuff mentioned in the linked article. Sadly, this isn't going to happen ...

[–] theblips@lemm.ee 2 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

How isn't it possible? Just don't give them phones, it's not that complicated

[–] cooperativesrock@lemm.ee 1 points 15 minutes ago

Ok, when was the last time you saw a working payphone? 2010? It isn't safe for teens to not have a phone because payphones don't exist any more.

[–] brandon@lemmy.ml 1 points 49 minutes ago (1 children)

You can walk into any Walmart in America and buy a cheap smartphone for $30.

This approach is even less effective than "just don't give them drugs".

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 36 minutes ago* (last edited 36 minutes ago) (2 children)

Ok, but you also need a data plan to go along w/ it (or regular visits to top up; is that still a thing?), plus hide it from parents, or you're going to have a bad time.

Drugs are a different story. You can often get drugs from friends (free to start), can buy them a little at a time, and you don't need to stash any at home. For a phone to be useful, it needs to be readily accessible, which means you'll have it with you everywhere.

It's possible, but it's going to take a fair amount of work to hide a phone from a parent who's paying even a little bit of attention.

The real problem here is parents. Parents need to step up and do a better job. Source: am a parent.

[–] brandon@lemmy.ml 1 points 13 minutes ago* (last edited 11 minutes ago)

Look, maybe it's true that parents should be doing a better job here. The thing is, that's an individual solution. This is a systemic problem. How kids (and adults) interact socially and consume media is fundamentally changed over the last thirty years and we're going to have to find ways to adapt to that as a society.

Yeah, in any particular individual case you can probably come up with a list of things the parent could have done differently. The reality is that this is a problem for tens (hundreds?) of millions of parents.

You can hand wave away any problem that affects children with "parents should do a better job". It didn't work for obesity, it didn't work for child traffic deaths, it didn't work for fentanyl overdoses, it didn't work for school shootings, it didn't work for measles, and it's not going to work for this either.

I'm just going to copy/paste what I wrote in a previous comment in a similar thread:

Everybody is so quick to blame the parents in these situations. Maybe there is some truth to that, but people also need to reckon with the fact that kids (and adults) are being constantly inundated by Skinner box apps, and “platforms” full of engagement bait designed to be as addictive and attractive as possible. All run by corporations with functionally no regard for the safety of their users.

Yeah, sure, if you’re giving advice to an individual parent, they should probably be keeping a closer eye on what their kids are doing.

But there are systemic problems here that can’t be fixed with individual action. By laying the blame solely at the feet of the parents here, you are in effect putting individual parents up against dozens of huge corporations, each with armies of expert advertisers, designers, and psychologists working to build these products. It’s hardly a fair fight.

[–] thatonecoder@lemmy.ca 1 points 20 minutes ago

Prohibition never works; people will always find other bad — maybe even worse — things to do. The human pressure to have social interactions may lead to creating terrible IRL friendships, ones that can be much more dangerous.

Instead, I would strongly advise for honest, mature conversations about the risks that social media comes along with. This can lead to a highly positive impact, especially if you teach how to observe interactions between people through social media, even if not interacting, yourself.

[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

The thing is that social media have an oversized influence that makes a calm discussion of possible solutions very hard to have. When the US recognized the implications of letting a foreign power exert so much control over their people, they tried banning TikTok, or breaking it up so their US operation would be under US control.

Facebook should also be split and its EU operation purchased by a European company, that could then spend more time implementing the other changes you mention (doom-scrolling, data protection) and less time lobbying to get all these pesky EU regulations removed.

And yes, it does feel heartbreaking to count the US as a threat to national security, but China has never threatened to annex Greenland with military force, so what would have been paranoia and extreme anti-americanism last year is now the sensible, level-headed thing to do.

[–] slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org 8 points 5 hours ago

No one should

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 6 hours ago

That's some cartoon villain level shit jfc

[–] hopesdead@startrek.website 36 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

This type of advertising isn’t new. There is that famous (although the claims from the father have been questioned) New York Times article written by Charles Duhigg in 2012. A father of a teenage girl in Minnesota got upset for receiving coupons from Target for infant care related products. As the story goes, he later learned his daughter was in fact pregnant. It turns out Target was using some predictive algorithm to identify would-be mothers and straight up sending them coupons for infant care products. It seems ever since this article was published that they stopped doing this in such a direct manner. Again, there have people who questioned the validity of the claims for this specific story, but Target did confirm they were doing this.

[–] El_Scapacabra@lemm.ee 15 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

My doctor's office (allegedly) handed my info to a plastic surgery clinic so they could send me a "happy 40th birthday, now fix your sagging bullshit!"-email the literal day I turned 40.

Needless to say that put a damper on things.

People have been doing evil shit for money since the invention of money. These days it's just automated.

[–] nomy@lemmy.zip 5 points 54 minutes ago

I'd call my former Dr's office and flip my shit. Them giving out your info may have been a HIPAA violation. You should really follow up and harass the fuck out of them.

[–] fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com 3 points 2 hours ago

Don't normalize this

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Grimtuck@lemmy.world 40 points 8 hours ago

Be aware that the companies would have paid Facebook handsomely to identify users in this way. The world we live in has a sickness with greed for money at its heart.

[–] faltryka@lemmy.world 249 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

At some point we need to start criminalizing shit like this and actually holding people accountable.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 55 points 9 hours ago (9 children)

It’s so much bigger than this. It starts young. iPad kids. Strict gender roles. Sexualization of children. Learning from parents who have been conditioned by capitalism, sexism and more. We got little girls that want skincare products and teens talking about plastic surgery. It’s bad.

Agreed though. Punish people for ruining society. I think I read a while ago that France had required social media posts to flag when images have been altered. We need more laws like this too.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] land@lemmy.dbzer0.com 88 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

💯 Big tech companies think they’re above the law.

[–] thejml@lemm.ee 100 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Thus far, they’d basically be right. Any fines are simply chocked up to “cost of doing business” expenses and since no one wants to either make solid laws against this stuff OR hold them accountable for current ones, they’ll just keep at it.

[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

If a law has a fine, it was created to deter poor people.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 112 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Saint Luigi deliver us from villains like Facebook

[–] seeigel@feddit.org 17 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

As if there would be no social networking without Zuckerberg.

Like any sin, the change starts with us. If we want a healthy social network, we can build a healthy social network.

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

If I could go back in time to the moment when ARPANET was created and show them what it would become, I would also beg them to stop their efforts.

"You will create the thing that will destroy us."

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 18 points 5 hours ago

Tom from Myspace never treated us like this.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Astertheprince@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 6 hours ago

I'm so glad I quit Facebook long ago and also started using uBlock Origin.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 77 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

Zuckerberg’s $330 million mega yacht may be tracked here: https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/details/9857511

[–] chellomere@lemmy.world 15 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Ah right, still in the north sea outside of Norway. Recently there was news of Sami villages being bribed to not put up a fuss when a "prominent person" wanted to go heliskiing, then his yacht arrived on site:

https://www.dn.se/sverige/samebyar-erbjods-ersattning-sedan-anlande-zuckerbergs-lyxfartyg-de-ville-tysta-oss/

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 hours ago

Can't go skiing with the plebs, no.

[–] chellomere@lemmy.world 23 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Translation of article from behind paywall:

"The Facebook CEO's enormous yacht has been anchored in a Norwegian fjord near the Swedish border.

Now DN can reveal that several Sami villages have been offered compensation for not saying no to a "prominent person" going on a luxury helicopter skiing trip in the mountains.

  • They wanted to buy our silence, says a representative of a Sami village.

At least three villages were contacted in March by a company that arranges helicopter skiing trips. The Sami villages have been offered compensation, ahead of a very secret group of tourists arriving to ski in the Swedish mountains in April. A Norwegian village team has also received a similar offer.

  • We understood that it was something special. The organizers were very keen for us to say yes, even though this is before the calving season when the ewes are pregnant and all the reindeer are very fragile after a tough winter, says a representative of a Sami village.

Helicopter skiing in untouched lands, known as heliskiing, has been criticized by reindeer owners for destroying nature and disturbing the reindeer – and the issue has been raised by the Norrbotten County Administrative Board to the government.

According to sources from several Sami villages, the plans for this particular April visit were somewhat out of the ordinary.

The Sami villages, which use helicopters in their reindeer husbandry, were offered six hours of helicopter use by the organizer – which corresponds to around 50,000 kronor.

On April 1, one of the largest private luxury yachts in existence arrived in Bodö, Norway – something that caused a stir in the Norwegian media.

It is owned by Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of the Facebook company Meta, who is one of the richest people in the world. He is one of the billionaires who has tried to approach US President Donald Trump by, among other things, donating money.

Zuckerberg's luxury yacht is called Launchpad, and he bought it last year for $330 million. The boat is almost 120 meters long. There is room on board for 26 guests and 42 crew members.

"Among the distinctive features are a private outdoor owner's deck with a jacuzzi, two certified helipads, a swimming pool with a moving floor and a spacious beach club," the manufacturer writes on its website.

Zuckerberg's smaller "supply ship" Wingman, which was included in the purchase of Launchpad, was also seen in Bodö. Wingman is also equipped with a helipad and helicopter.

Both ships then headed north and last week they arrived in a small coastal village, Drag, in northern Norway, where, according to information to DN, a house has been rented in order to, among other things, be able to cook for the guests from the boat.

  • There were several helicopters on site and a hell of a lot of people. A big operation, says a source to DN.

It is from there that the controversial extreme sports event is said to have taken place. Helicopters are said to have traveled across the border to Sweden to drop off guests in the Swedish mountains for skiing on the pristine top snow. According to several sources to DN, the yachts' own helicopters were used. In addition, at least one more from a local entrepreneur.

  • We see them flying from here every day, a source in the Norwegian Drag told DN this weekend.

A businessman in the area who was asked early on to contribute to the event, tells DN that the plan was for the group to come with a large yacht with its own helicopters and that they hired a Swiss organizer as an intermediary:

  • It was the crème de la crème, no ordinary millionaires. They wanted a three-star chef up in the mountains and they would fly their own helicopters and bring their own guides. It felt so unnecessary. It didn't make sense. We said no.

DN has not been able to confirm that Mark Zuckerberg himself was on board any of the ships.

A representative for a company that accepted said to DN before the visit:

– We have a duty of confidentiality when it comes to the customer. But honestly, I don't know who is going to ski. That it is some prominent person possibly, if they can afford to pay for all that. But I have no idea who or what they are. We sell a flight service. We fly a helicopter – it is a logistical solution for this event.

There has been reluctance from Sami villages that you have been in contact with. What do you say about that?

– The Sami villages are very important customers for us too and we have constant contact with them. It is an ongoing dialogue that takes place continuously all the time.

The company does not want to comment on the fact that the event takes place in connection with the calving period.

One of the villages that has been offered compensation is Unna tjerusj Sami village. They have – like the other respondents that DN has spoken to – declined the compensation. Chairwoman Helena Omma:

– My position is no. There is a word in Sami called joavdelaš. It means something like “useless”, things that you do completely unnecessarily. And heliskiing is the definition of joavdelaš, there is no benefit in this, she says.

– It is harmful to the climate, it disturbs reindeer as well as wildlife and nature in the area and I am completely against using nature as a playhouse. Nature has its own value and its own rights. In this case, it is not even the public’s interest in outdoor recreation that is being taken into account – only the richest people have the opportunity to do something like this.

How do you feel about the fact that the arrangement seems to have been carried out despite you and the other Sami villages having said no?

– Then they have asked so that – if we are lucky and we say yes – they can say that they are doing it in cooperation with the Sami villages. So it is only worth something if we are positive, otherwise they ignore what we say.

Both Launchpad and Wingman have crossed the Atlantic to get to the Norwegian ports, with very large climate emissions as a result. When the lifestyle website Luxury Launches in December calculated the emissions of the two ships during the 10 months that Zuckerberg had owned them until then, they concluded that the emissions amounted to over three million liters, equivalent to 52,000 full tanks in a normal-sized car.

– My advice is to respect the sensitive environment you have the privilege of visiting and understand that you have arrived at the planet's "ground zero" when it comes to climate change. The temperature is increasing two to three times faster in the Arctic Circle, which has caused sharp shifts in snow and ice conditions that are blocking reindeer pastures, changing vegetation and causing accelerated melting of all glaciers, Johan Rockström tells DN.

A reindeer herder who wishes to remain anonymous tells DN that it feels ironic that a group of people using private jets, luxury yachts and helicopters are traveling around the world to find the last snow-covered mountains.

– Climate change is clearly visible – it is an extremely snow-poor year and this may lead to having to move the reindeer to the northwest earlier than usual.

After the adventure in the Swedish mountains, Zuckerberg's luxury yachts continue towards Svalbard according to the port's arrival lists.

On Monday, he was in court in Washington DC to defend Meta's purchase of Instagram and Whatsapp, which according to the US Competition and Consumer Protection Authority has created a monopoly.

DN has sought Mark Zuckerberg through Meta's press service.

Criticism of heliskiing for several reasons

At the end of March, Professor Johan Rockström, among others, called for a ban on heliskiing in an opinion article in Expressen, due to high emissions, destruction of sensitive nature and the fact that the activity itself is dangerous.

In March, two men died in an avalanche accident in Abisko during a heliskiing excursion. The organizer is now suspected of causing death to another person, among other things.

Many Sami villages elsewhere are experiencing major problems with heliskiing on their land.

In the areas currently in question, several people DN spoke to say that heliskiing must be said no – regardless of whether there are reindeer in the area at the time or not. The risk, they say, of allowing one operator in is that more will gradually join, who will later run tours where reindeer are present."

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 66 points 10 hours ago (4 children)

Who the fuck comes up with this stuff?

[–] RecallMadness@lemmy.nz 8 points 4 hours ago

This is the sort of thing machine learning algorithms are pretty good at at.

Coupled with however many millions of interactions a day, you would have no problem correlating changes to your algorithm against increases in revenue.

But. It’s often not that impressive. Humans are equally good at noticing patterns.

All it takes is for one person at FB to see their wife or daughter delete a post, ask them “why did you delete that post” and take away from the response of “It made me look fat” to go “there’s a new targeted ad that’ll get me a bonus”.

In a similar vein, 80% of your banks anti-fraud systems isn’t deep learning models that detect fraudulent behaviour. Instead it’s “if the user is based in Russia, add 80 points, and if the account is at a branch in 10km of Heinersdorf Berlin, add another 50…. We’re pretty sure a Russian scammer goes on holiday every 6 months and opens a bunch of accounts there, we just don’t know which ones”.

[–] captainjaneway@lemmy.blahaj.zone 62 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

The most generous assumption is that they use statistics to determine correlations like this (e.g., deleted selfies resulted in a high CTR for beauty ads so they made that a part of their algo). The least generous interpretation is exactly what you're thinking: an asshole came up with it because it's logical and effective.

Either way, ethics needs to be a bigger part of the programmers education. And we, as a society, need to make algorithms more transparent (at least social media algorithms). Reddit's trending algorithm used to be open source during the good ole days.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] socphoenix@midwest.social 68 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Wonder how much of a bonus the sick fuck who pitched that got for the idea?

[–] HeyJoe@lemmy.world 37 points 10 hours ago

Probably nothing. Most likely, a paid consultant to give ideas. And if it was a worker, they were just doing their job and at most got a "great job, keep up the good work," praise email.

load more comments
view more: next ›