Technology

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] TheFinn@discuss.tchncs.de 56 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I highly doubt you'll find any company composed solely of people that support ideologies you agree with. I know that sounds flippant and dismissive but ultimately we should support the best options we have. Or I guess you can roll your own solution and trust that you have the skills to stay ahead of the opposition.

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] gointhefridge@lemmy.zip 33 points 2 months ago (3 children)

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] TheFinn@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Not using a VPN feeds other companies valuable data. Or are you suggesting we all become hermits on public land?

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago*

nah dude i'm suggesting we become hermits together.

parent

[+] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What info?

If you encryption & use DoH for DNS resolution, they can see the IPs you are connecting to, yes a sufficiently motivated ISP can use reverse DNS lookups to tell what sites you are accessing, but if you're ISP is that bad, find a new one.

do you trust your ISP or some guy that donated to political parties that want to kick out immigrants more?

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] chillpanzee@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago

There are many parts of the world where the ISPs really are that bad, and consumers don't have the choice to switch to a competitor that isn't equally bad.

parent

[–] aphonefriend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

Switch to what, starlink? Because that's the only other option for the majority of rural America. You think this issue, Elon musk, or my Trump ass kissing aligned isp is the lesser evil?

parent

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Sometimes a VPN is more trustworthy, it's just wild that people think they are always better, giving money to the main guy funding a far-right party or Comcast, seems like an easy call.

parent

[+] TheFinn@discuss.tchncs.de -10 points 2 months ago

Not using a VPN feeds other companies valuable data. Or are you suggesting we all become hermits on public land?

parent

[+] sbrodolino_21@lemmy.world -36 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Everything you see, use, touch, eat every day has been made possible by capitalism. If not for capitalism, we'd all still be farming and dying by 40.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] tixnou@feddit.cl 13 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

yeeaah it's all thanks to the feudalism 2.0 that we live in. long live the parasitic bourgeoisie. life is absolutely perfect nothing to see here

parent

[–] sbrodolino_21@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago*

This is basically a list of things that are wrong with the U.S. or problems in the world.

I don't understand how this proves that capitalism is bad. If the world still hasn't solved all its problems, then capitalism is inherently bad?

By all metrics, the world is much much better now than it was 100 years ago. And it's mostly thanks to market economy.

All countries that have tried something different have had to resort to some flavour of capitalism in order to have any meaningful development.

Also, nobody said our economic system in its current form it's perfect.

parent

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Well that comment wins my Billy Madison comment of the day.

parent

[–] mriormro@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago

fucking lol

parent

[+] stickyprimer@lemmy.world -15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

We’d be dying ethically, though! I’m kidding. Did you not know this place is an extreme-left echo chamber?

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

not really extreme left tbh, thats .ml hexbear and grad.

parent

[–] stickyprimer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago*

I don’t know what those are - I just waded into Lemmy on a very large instance but I constantly see large numbers of people who proceed as if we’re all in agreement that capitalism is a proven evil and should definitely be put behind us in favor of a Marxist economy. This is what I consider extreme left. Now is it the uttermost tip of extreme? Surely not. But literal communism is not moderate left, or center left, it is far left. We could probably argue over the semantics of this for a long time.

parent

[–] sbrodolino_21@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago

I know it is. I'll still interact with it and say my opinion. Don't really care about the down votes.

parent

[–] Prior_Industry@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

I guess there is a difference between the founder being a shit head and one of the rank and file being a shit head. Would be nice if just a few of the CEO class weren't psychopaths.

parent

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

There's a big difference between a CEO that openly hates unions and has affairs or a software developer making 100k a year that makes racist AF on Facebook vs a CEO that's literally keeping a bunch of Nazis afloat and giving them an outsized voice.

Also, there's no best option when it comes to Nazis because if you give them an inch, they'll subvert democracy and human decency.

parent

[–] gerryflap@feddit.nl 2 points 2 months ago

I agree, but there's a difference between simply differing opinion and dumping a boat load of money, presumably some of it from Mullvad subscriptions, into a party that advocates for "remigration". If the dude just had some weird opinions I wouldn't necessarily switch, but I don't like the idea of my money directly helping with helping the far right. Honestly, I wouldn't even remotely care enough if one of the founders was part of a "normal" European neoliberal or conservative party, I have plenty of friends across the political spectrum. But I don't like giving extremists my momey

parent

[–] stickyprimer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

In particular, privacy-oriented services seem to occupy an amoral zone. Probably because if you’re truly going to deliver on privacy promises, you have to be okay with giving them to everybody, including nefarious people doing bad things with them.

parent

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 child)

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely ", unfortunately. I heard that studies have shown the neurophysiology of a person changes the longer they are in power and influence.

parent

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

That's interesting, but did they control for becoming a raging K-head?

parent

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago

There is no such thing as an ethical corporation. I'm going to tell you now, if you cannot ever compromise then learn subsistence farming as soon as you can.

parent

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk -5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

I think the response makes it obvious that a company is not it's co-CEO, and a co-CEO is not a company.

Granted a tiny amount of your fees may make their way to a political party you vehemently oppose, but I think you're also supporting a lot of other people in the organisation that are on your side.

parent

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

It's not a "tiny" amount of money, this dude is the CEO who makes all of the money in the company and any money going to Nazis is problematic especially when the Nazis in question are almost fully funded by this CEO and yes the CEO is the face and moral driver of a company.

Pretty ironic saying the company supports free speech when the biggest money maker is bankrolling a group that specifically gasses free speech and I doubt the other working there have even a sliver of speech that the CEO does.

parent

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk -2 points 2 months ago

Before your fee gets into a CEOs hands it pays for people's salaries and the costs of the company. That's what I mean by a tiny amount. It's only what's left after that that the CEO can benefit from.

parent

[+] 0x0@infosec.pub -42 points 2 months ago (4 children)

You don't have to agree with the chef in politics to enjoy their food.

Acting like that zealously would make you quickly run out of options if you actually talked to most chefs.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 63 points 2 months ago*

There's a difference between a chef having an opinion and a high-ranking decision maker having an opinion and the money to amplify it.

If the chef thinks he shouldn't have to make food for immigrants, that's too bad. He'll have to do his job anyway. If the CEO thinks his establishment shouldn't serve immigrants and donates to politicians that promise to let him segregate his diner, that might actually have an impact far greater than the chef's opinion.

parent

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 34 points 2 months ago

And contributing money to shitbags allows them to keep funding terrible values. See Musk.

parent

[–] ProfThadBach@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

True but the only thing these fuckers understand the minus to their wallet.

parent

[–] stickyprimer@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

It’s more a question of “know where your money is going.” You can stick your head in the sand and pretend not to know if you wish, but don’t presume to lecture others who won’t.