beedog

A Meta spokesperson told Reuters that the company had settled the lawsuit in Australia on a no admission basis, closing a chapter on allegations regarding past practices of the firm.

This sounds more like an inconvenience to Meta. Did they learn anything about respecting user privacy? Maybe they learned to not get caught next time.

I was actually just searching for information on unbiased news source on Lemmy earlier but was not able to find much, so I went ahead to search Reddit. I found the top post for this thread informative, and here's the list of the main points:

• There is no such thing as unbiased news.
• Get news from multiple sources with opposing biases, and form your own opinion.
• Avoid media outlets whose business model incentivizes sensationalism.
• If a story seems even slightly questionable, find a confirming source.
• Be aware of the reliability of your sources.
• Journalists and editors are not, on the whole, bad people.

I think it's important to exercise critical thinking and try your best to recognize biases in articles. It helps to try to discern words/opinions that are meant to sway how you think and feel versus facts that you can attempt to fact check.

I found this news bias chart (which in itself can have bias), that was shared from this Reddit post, which I used to add more news sources to help broaden my view. For sites that do not have RSS feeds, you can use one of these RSS bridges to subscribe if it's supported.

I also stumbled upon these, from posts I don't remember, which might be useful:

• Ground News
• AllSides
• Tangle News

Is the study linked from the article? I fail to find it other than the link to Greenly Website. Feels like the author, Isabel O'Brien, pulled up numbers somewhere else and made the title out of those numbers. The most likely article I found on Greenly is The Hidden Environmental Cost of Social Media where it discusses various sustainability efforts for social media companies, and its method of calculation.

The measurements are only done in the US, UK, and France. In particular, the Guardian's article cites this data that I do not see from Greenly's article:

TikTok’s users also have the second-highest emissions per minute of use on social media according to Greenly’s analysis, just after YouTube. One minute on TikTok will burn 2.921 grams of CO2e, on average, while one minute on YouTube will burn 2.923 grams. One minute on Instagram burns 2.912 grams.

Greenly's article under the heading Comparison of Energy Consumption Across Platforms does cite data from Greenspector's article (updated the link to 2023 but note Greenly's article still refers to the link from 2021), using method that does not reflect real-world usage:

• Step 1: launch the application
• Step 2: read news feed without scrolling (30 sec)
• Step 3: News feed scrolls with pauses.
• Step 4: application background (30 sec)

And useless conclusion was drawn:

Users of video-centric platforms like TikTok and Snapchat are responsible for higher energy consumption

The Device Impact: Laptop vs. Mobile subheading has slightly more interesting takeaway:

The device used to access social media can significantly influence the overall emissions, with laptops generally having a much higher carbon footprint compared to mobile devices. Platforms like YouTube and Facebook, which have a larger share of laptop users, contribute more to emissions than mobile-heavy platforms like TikTok, even if the time spent on the platforms is similar. This difference highlights the importance of considering both the platform and the device when assessing the environmental impact of social media usage.

The Aggregate Emissions for Each Country subheading:

However, the data consistently reinforces that the carbon intensity of a country's energy grid plays a significant role in shaping the overall emissions profile.

Then the article proceeds to talk about per-user usage in each country again drawing useless conclusions about video-intensive platforms producing more carbon footprint.

Lastly under the Data Centers: The Backbone of Social Media and Their Carbon Cost heading, it turned out that data center emissions are orders of magnitude larger than user emissions, and yet the Guardian's article appears to only focus on per-user emission. In Greenly's data table, somehow TikTok is always ordered before Instagram despite TikTok having consistently lower annual data center emission than Instagram while every other platforms are in proper sort order.

To see the full emissions per user from both devices and data center, I added the annual user and data center emissions divided by the number of users for each region, then total up US, UK, and France then divided by 3:

The total annual emissions from both user devices and data center combined:

I have lost the plot.

I agree with the points made in the video about the demographics of those who attend public hearings. The fact that development companies pay millions of dollars in interest while going through the lengthy public hearing process is concerning, as those costs could ultimately be passed on to home buyers, making housing even less affordable.

The Residents Assembly model sounds like a promising solution to ensure that a diverse group of volunteers can contribute to the growth and development plans of the area. While it may not completely mitigate the problem of soliciting inputs from underrepresented demographics, it seems like a step in the right direction.

(It was funny to see a clip of Chad and JT (~15:05 no audio) slipped into this video)

I may have overlooked but I did not find specific data in the article on the breakdown of building construction and/or cement production versus emissions for other categories. Can you cite the source with data that helped you reached your conclusion?