this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
-131 points (11.7% liked)

Technology

67050 readers
4023 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
-131
Email signatures are harming the planet and could cost people their lives — it’s time to stop using them. (theconversation.com)
submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by Tea@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world
55 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Edit: A lot of people seem to hate on the article without reading it.

Here is a supporting scientific source, by the same author: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666188825000863

The environmental impact of our online habits is far larger than most realize, and as digital communication continues to evolve, we must consider its long-term consequences on the environment and human life. We should take the easy steps of cutting wasteful energy use in our communications and it can start with eliminating email signatures.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Impronoucabl@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago

Paraphrasing a bit from the scientific source:

If the population of Canada used email signatures for a year, ~30 people in developing countries will suffer a premature death within the next 100 years.

That 100% should have been in the article in some clear form or another.

I'm not against the points of the article, I'm against it being so poorly written that AI slop is just as good.