- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Is it ending capitalism? If not, it’s greenwashing. Any action other than stopping the one thing fucking up our planet is a distraction.
Communism will save the environment.
Who said anything about communism? I mean yes it’s an option but I think the bigger priority is getting rid of fossil fascism.
What options are there really other than capitalism, communism, and everything that mixes the two?
No, you’re right. There’s only two sides: the good side and the evil side. You have to pick one and if you don’t you’re just in between the two.
Well if you force me to choose I will go for the one that won’t fucking murder the planet and everyone on it, thank you very much.
yet you iphone venezuela 100 garillion dead!!1!1!!!1!1!
Huh, figured your instance was anticommunist after that bad experience with /196’s modteam. (banned me for saying maaybe we shouldn’t be quoting Keffals, an open grifter who I’ve now been made aware of is also an open pedophile) Pleasantly surprised to see that isn’t the case.
That’s weird, this instance is pretty left leaning from my experience.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It is about as useful as a bullshit milkshake is to a vegan.
Huh?
How tf can my website produce less than 0g pf emissions?
Ecosia plants trees for every search request. So technically it removes co2 every time you visit the site.
Until the tree dies and the carbon goes back into the atmosphere.
relevant if it sabotages coal mining infrastructure
The Carbon footprint of a website is hard to determine and given the examples posted in this thread, I would not trust their conclusions.
Is it too difficult to post some context?
This appears to be the calculator: https://www.websitecarbon.com/
And it only appears to check the size of downloaded assets and then whether the hosting provider is known to use renewables. Indeed not terribly exhaustive or useful.
I personally think it’s kind of dumb as hell. I’m not sure how you would know but also websites are a tiny fraction of emissions. If you want to lower emissions it’s much more effective to go for legislation local to you.
If this encourages light, fast loading pages, I’m all for it.
The future is no JavaScript!!
I wish.
Lies are good if I like one of the outcomes they promote!
It was kind of a joke response.
Whatever it is, it’s a joke. Things like this just take the focus off the people actually causing the problem.
Yeah, this goes into the same bin as carbon offset. Just because you had a couple trees planted in one part of the world you should not be allowed to polute the rivers in another part of the world.
Marketing bullshit that appeals to some low-information, vibes-based liberals.
Greenwashing for profit.
Pretty much. Being liberal myself, it drives me insane seeing the absolute triple people will buy into. Websites aren’t the things to target, let’s look at things like cruise ships and transitioning to renewable energy.
Implying they’re not all vibes-based liberals. (try avoid using low-information due to its ties with the racist dogwhistle “low-information voter”)
I’ve never seen low-information voter used as a racist dog whistle, at least not when it was first used during the Obama years. Has it been used differently since?
UC Berkeley cognitive linguist George Lakoff, 2012: Dumb and dumber: The ‘low-information’ voter:As the U.S. presidential campaign heats up, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are piling up money and shoring up their political bases. But they’re also going after a few million voters in a handful of swing states — voters considered critical to winning the election. And within this bloc of voters is a special camp: “low-information voters,” or LIVs, a term that keeps popping up in magazines and political blogs.
The term is mainly used by liberals to refer to those who vote conservative against their interests and the best interests of the nation. It assumes they vote that way because they lack sufficient information about issues. The assumption being, of course, that if only they had the real facts, they would vote differently — for both their own best interests and those of the nation.
The problem is that, as neutral as the term “low-information voters” may sound, it’s pejorative and used to express frustration with these voters, who (we’re told) act against their own best interests. Liberals tend to attribute the problem in large part to conscious Republican efforts at misinformation — say, on Fox News or talk radio — and in part to faulty information gleaned from friends, family and random sources.
to refer to those who vote conservative against their interests
They mean black people who don’t vote for them. That’s why it’s a dogwhistle. It became a lot more clear what they meant by that during the 2016 presidential election between Clinton and Trump. The implication being that the reason they weren’t voting for them was because they were intellectually inferior, and not because they were making a conscious and willing decision to not vote for a neoliberal hag.
I mean you’re probably not murdering anyone by using it, just wanted to tip you off of its problematic connotations.
Good to know, thanks.
That’s fucking stupid.
Virtue signalling at its worst. It’s completely meaningless.
For all the comments that say “the real problem is…”: this is crisis and working on all emission sources contributes to a solution not just the biggest emitters.
Everything we online has an impact in the real world and there’s some value in reminding people that. And yes, some sites could be causing a lot emissions than others.
Some are powered by solar, others by coal.
ARM chips are more energy efficient than x86 and so on.
We can have a real impact by focusing hard enough on 0.00001% of the problem!
Oh wait, no, we can’t.
There are lots folks and lots of problems. We don’t have to focus. We can work on many aspects at the same time, big and small.
You can invent the worlds most energy efficient CPU, put it on every server rack in the world, and all your progress will be undone by that one billionaire who decides they want international taco bell at 3 AM.
On the other hand, you can approach the dramatic cut of emissions from both angles, as in “you are not legally able to do what you want as long as you can pay for it, and you have the responsibility in minimizing emissions”.
Internet does generate a lot of emissions. Streaming quality, website size. Whatever we do to reduce the energy demand is a good idea, as long as we don’t think of it as " The Solution", but as part of a wide range of actions aimed at slashing energy consumption.
If ESG is anything to go by, just a greenwashing fad they’ll drop as soon as it doesn’t have the desired effect
stupid but if it removes useless bloat and data farming im for it
