- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
Sorta like how corporations pushed recycling onto the public to deflect from their own culpability for pollution. Why would we regulate the companies building huge data centers when we can get average people to absorb the cost? It’s not like they’re making obscene profits while laying off untold thousands.
I mean, if that was the case, sure, let’s have them pay to clean up the waste they generate. But have you seen NVIDIA, Microsoft, or Meta lately? These companies are barely staying in business. Their CEOs can hardly afford to ride the bus to work. Let’s cut them a break.
TLDR: It’s your fault the earth is dying because you horde emails.
You must log in or register to comment.
Power off the AI farms that no one wants anyway (except the oligarchs of course)
Nah, power off the oligarchs too
triggering the server to delete your email is more energy than leaving it in storage (on a platter disk in some array in a raid)
the people who thought of that example are ignorant of how data centers work
the people who thought of that example are ignorant of how data centers work
Almost all politicians are ignorant about tech, yet we let them regulate it. In the worst ways. And fail to regulate it where it ought to be regulated.
Competent Politicians are well aware that they’re not experts on everything and hence hire domain experts to help them understand those domains and actually make informed decisions about them.
Mind you, I suspect this specifically is more a side effect of the profound problems with Dishonesty and Cronyism that the UK has: basically they tackled drought as a negative perception of the Government problem, so set up a talk group to project the impression that the Government was doing something about it and chose as head of it (and to be well paid for it) somebody whose greatest qualification for it was being their mate, all of which is very typically in British power circles.
The natural consequence of such things is them producing fancy press releases which look absolutelly moronic for domain experts, but since most of the people who read such releases are not domain experts, that’s usually fine and in fact advances the true purpose of that “group” (managing perceptions).
Even with the Tech Press internationally picking this up and making fun of it, since the very same people who play these power games over there also control the local Press, they might very well get away in Britain itself with a press release with even such a moronic idea as this, as it will be spinned to make them look good.
OP hit the nail on the head. This is once again shifting the blame (and guilt) onto individuals who even collectively have fuck-all impact on the problem in question.
The worst of it is, some people will believe this shit.
What’s even more infuriating is the numbers of people who fail to recognize that all of these companies sell these goods and services to consumers and it is those consumers who can reduce the demand.
There was/is a demand for slavery. Should we wait for these people to realize that maybe owning slaves is not okay and morally wrong? Or should we just outright ban slavery and not give two fucks how “the market forces” view such action? You tell me.
That’s a false equivalence.
Your argument is, correct me if I’m wrong, that the demand for product X always necessetates its production/supply and that supply will cease when there is no more demand.
A valid argument based on basic market economic principles.
I argue that there are times, when the demand for something does not outweigh the cost incurred (by the society) from the production and supply of a product. Meaning there are cases, such as this one, when it is almost impossible to decrease demand and thus influence the production which in turn would decrease the cost incurred by the society. In my view, the State has to protect foremost its citizenry, not ginormous enterprises. If this protection means going against “market forces”, then so be it.
Both “products” cause harm to society while only a few benefit, so no, it was not a false equivalence.
But then again, I could be mistaken and feel free to correct me on anything. :))
