this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2026
362 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

85539 readers
3171 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] webkitten@piefed.social 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Really love how supposed left of centre governments are falling in line to these "age verification" bills, which are bankrolled by anti-LGBT far right groups designed to push LGBTQ kids from public life.

Also love how none of them even stop to think that this was a possibility for why these bills were being pushed when the people pushing them have flat out admitted it.

[–] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 2 points 6 hours ago

I honestly think that's just a bonus to them. They're doing it so they can link people's IDs to their online activity and we all get automatically Big brothered for the rest of time

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Yes. Liberals aren't your friends. They appropriated queer politics to do exactly this. People have been warning against this for decades.

They are not being tricked into doing this, this is the second time the Liberal party alone has tried this along with other proposals from Cons and other internet authoritarianism policies like lawful access. They know what it is for and they understand the consequences of who it'll effect. It just so happens queer people (racialized people, indigenous people, disabled people, etc.) are also disproportionately politically active and challenging to liberal capitalism, and liberals have had an exceedingly difficult time shutting that down online through censorship alone.

It is not only distortive but also dangerous to accept that this is out of stupidity and ignorance. They are attacking us. "Elbows up," awards for the people who voted for Carney because they didn't think a minority govt with a stronger NDP presence was possible.

[–] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca -1 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

I mean I agree with you mostly but the vote was for Carney or conservatives. Voting NDP for most people would be effectively a vote for the Tories.

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Two generational NDP ridings in my area flipped Con because of Liberal voters. So, I can't say I particularly give a shit about how this would hypothetically empower the PC Party, since our local needs will definitely be ignored in the foreseeable future anyway, maybe forever if a Lib gets elected next. The fact is that a minority government, either PC or Liberal, would have far less power at its disposal to enact these common neoliberal policies. Instead, "Elbows Up," we have a majority Liberal parliament that is aggressively slashing environmental protections, funnelling public wealth into private corporations for "sovereignty-"based mining and fossil fuel drilling, and implementing authoritarian internet surveillance policies; of course, all without consideration of indigenous peoples or First Nations. Wow, what a difference.

Don't act like you're considering the trans genocide rhetoric that PP was running on either, because it's not like Carney has done anything to address the spread of anti-trans hatespeech or the restricted access to gender-affirming care achieved throug privatization. Is it better because now it isn't talked about at all besides by the victims?

[–] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

So the NDP lost in your riding and your still arguing that I should have voted for them in mine?

[–] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 1 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Down voting me doesn't make FPTP not real

[–] wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

No, but being wrong makes you wrong.

There is a world where the NDP is a viable candidate, and Layton proved that.

[–] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Absolutely there is, and I would have loved to have voted for a competent NDP candidate in my riding if they had any prayer of winning either my riding or doing anything meaningful at all on a federal level.

I'm still not wrong though.

You wishing the NDP could have run and won in any significant numbers and without risking a PP victory doesn't make it so, and people voting NDP just because they like NDP policy wouldn't have changed that

[–] wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 5 hours ago

Why only the past?

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I love how you made this comment within minutes of someone else giving you a single downvote. You are wrong because you misunderstand how power in this system works and how people who aren't in positions of power must navigate the politics of this system to their benefit, not because people think that FPTP isn't a real thing or a factor in elections here.

[–] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 1 points 5 hours ago

I'm still not wrong. For most people in Canada Voting NDP in the last election would effectively have amounted to a pro Tory vote in the majority of ridings

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

You do not have a two party system, you have a parliamentary system.

[–] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 0 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

That's correct, thanks for telling me something I learned in grade 2 social studies.

I also learned what first past the post voting was in grade 2 social studies.

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Cool, FPTP in Parliamentary systems does not result in a two party system. Therefore no, your generic Americanism of 'if you don't vote for the lesser evil you're voting for the greater evil' is objectively and totally incorrect in every possible interpretation of Canadian politics or parliamentary politics in general.

I know you people are basically more American than European, but that doesn't meant you have to keep yourselves at their intelligence level.

[–] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

You're really going to try to talk to me about my own political system and call me America for not knowing better?

It's you who doesn't understand our system, and I never mentioned once a two party state.

We are not a two party state, I don't like the liberals, and the only thing I said was that An NDP vote in most ridings for our last election would be in effect a vote in favor of the Tory in that riding. As in most ridings the liberals were the most likely to beat the Tories.

We need to vote strategically in our system of we don't want to throw away our votes or support Tories.

That's the reality of our system, I'm not that interested in the fantasy version where we vote NDP and then everyone gets a rainbow and a family doctor and an education

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It’s you who doesn’t understand our system, and I never mentioned once a two party state.

Yes, yes you did. You said:

and the only thing I said was that An NDP vote in most ridings for our last election would be in effect a vote in favor of the Tory in that riding. As in most ridings the liberals were the most likely to beat the Tories.

This is a two party system that you're describing.

This is not what you have. A vote for a party is a vote for that party (or coalition). It is not a vote for whom you believe is the enemy party because its not for your preferred party.

Americans use the exact same reasoning, which resulted in the last two presidents having approval ratings under 40% within 2 years. "If you don't vote for 'shitty compromise which is objectively as bad as this other party but marginally different, you're just voting for the other party.'

We need to vote strategically in our system of we don’t want to throw away our votes or support Tories.

No. You have a parliamentary system. This is specifically designed to not devolve or degenerate into a two party system via 'strategic' aka American-style voting decisions. You vote for what you want. The more parties that win seats, the less power any party has, and the need for coalitions increases, which results in a better outcome than the American-style system you're ascribing to Canada.

You have the solution to two-party politics. You have the solution to strategic voting. It's already implemented. You just need to not ruin it by doing American-style politics. That's it.

That’s the reality of our system, I’m not that interested in the fantasy version where we vote NDP and then everyone gets a rainbow and a family doctor and an education

No, if everyone voted for the party that most represented their interests, then no single party has power and a coalition will have to form to produce a PM. Then you get a half rainbow, a chiropractor, and free American college; which is a half measure but infinitely better than sabotaging yourself because you think this is a team sport.

[–] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks for confirming you truly don't understand our politics or system at all.

Assume I want to vote for party A, party B is acceptable to me, party C is unacceptable to me.

Polling shows party B and C are virtually neck and neck, party A is unlikely to win.

I vote for party B, party B wins, we get a chiropractor.

I vote for party A, party C wins, and we get fascism.

Explain to me why I should take a principled stance and vote A anyway. After all they're who I most want to vote for

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 2 hours ago

Because if you vote for Party A and x number of people vote for party A, Party A gets x number of seats. You have a parliamentary system. Seats are awarded based on the percentage of votes. You vote for Party B Party A gets fewer seats, you are awarding mediocrity. If Party A and B are actually similar, then they will form a coalition and simply out number Party C making Party C unable to do anything.

You do not have a two party system. You have a Parliamentary system. You do not have a winner take all zero sum system, you have a parliamentary system.

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Cool, well, maybe you should read about it in your adult life too.

[–] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 1 points 5 hours ago

Thanks yeah I have, that's why I didn't throw my vote away giving it to the guy definitely coming a distant 3rd place and risking a Tory winning

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Those in power hate the anonymous internet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kibblebits@quokk.au 104 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Do you want authoritarianism, because that’s how you get it.

[–] Insekticus@aussie.zone 27 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I think it's already here (globally, I mean). The beast is just now confident to show its face.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Timbo303@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 days ago

This seems rather pointless from a business standpoint it will hurt many businesses geared towards children such as youtube kids even.

I think anyone thinking about enacting a law like this deserves to be impeached immediately the public have spoken against this and they are more valid arguments than for this.

  1. Your ID data can be hacked such as what happened with persona. I don't consider uploading your ID unless you must for a bank, phone provider, government entity, or work. No other business should ever need this info in my opinion.

  2. Selfie option will just fuel artificial intelligence. In my opinion they need to outlaw the use of scrapping age verification selfie images for ai.

[–] UltraBlack@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Rule34: don't lock down the Internet

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

How many lawmakers are publicizing their support for Rule 34 on the internet?

Rule 34 is a famous internet maxim stating: "If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions." It asserts that any conceivable subject, fictional character, corporate brand, or inanimate object has been or will be depicted in explicit content somewhere online.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah, once one country has done it, the rest can join in with a flick of a switch.

The big sites are only too happy to hoover up and sell even more data about you.

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 38 points 2 days ago

The elites in every country are fighting together to keep us down, while we fight against each other.

There is a simple common problem.

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 65 points 3 days ago (29 children)

What can we do to stop this?

[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

End capitalism. It's no coincidence all these countries are pushing this in lockstep.

End goal is the death of online freedom.

Get angry, get involved in your local politics to bring democracy to the workplace and the economy.

It's not gonna get better otherwise.

[–] nul42@lemmy.ca 44 points 3 days ago (8 children)

My plan is to just never submit to an age verification. Change servers or self host if necessary. Worse comes to worse, we log off.

[–] Insekticus@aussie.zone 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's the spirit.

I'll watch the system burn to the ground before I agree to privacy invasion.

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

But it won't burn, it will be content to leave you behind.

[–] MrOtingocni@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Leave us behind? Where is it going?

[–] BigBenis@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (14 children)

And so what? Many of us left Reddit because it killed 3rd party apps to force us onto its shitty mobile app. Did it burn without us? No, I doubt they even noticed. Does that make our departure meaningless? Also no, we built something better here.

[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

TBH this is just how it goes in general I think. A small group of people build something neat, and if it attracts enough people then the corporations and money come in, they attract more people and it all goes to shit, then a small amount of people from that group leave and start a new thing. reddit was the neat little alternative thing once.

I suspect eventually we'll probably have to build a second internet lol

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
[–] merdaverse@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ironic that this is being pushed by "liberals". They don't even bother to live up to their own failing ideology anymore.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Everyone in power wants it. They all say "It's for the children". State govs have already done it for adult sites.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Serious question, can we start building local infrastructure for our own internet via meshtastic and those technologies?

[–] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Seconding reticulum. Meshtastic is a toy, reticulum is actual infrastructure

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nao@sh.itjust.works 32 points 3 days ago (7 children)

Why does every government want age verification now, what's in it for them? Can't be one started and everyone saw it and thought that's a great idea let's introduce it too?

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 73 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Because it de facto requires everyone using the internet to provide their identity, which is something that gives authoritarian types a huge boner. Once there is no such thing as anonymous discourse, it becomes trivial to target/arrest/harass/brutalize dissenters or indeed anyone the current regime simply doesn't like.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I suspect it's just their way of inching towards requiring everyone to provide ID to access the internet, they pretty much always wrap this stuff up in some sort of "protect the children" hysteria, so they can accuse anyone who protests it of being a pedophile.

Also Meta is lobbying for it so they can get off the hook for having to moderate their own stuff by shunting the responsibility onto someone else.

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 23 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It’s part of the data center push, Palantir, all of it. Centralized info storage so if anyone starts to push back anywhere they know exactly who and where. That and ads. The internet is too anonymous.

It’s the same set of billionaires. A little line between countries doesn’t mean much to them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›