this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2025
542 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
74330 readers
2862 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can you link more information about this conflict of interest? I can't find anything about it.
Just a fun fact about “think tanks”, “institutes”, “foundations” and most of those little groups is that when they appear in the news there’s a solid chance that they’re being propped up by corpo money. Every time they appear you need to go double check their bias and you’ll often find that it will be they themselves saying they’re “a conservative think tank” and, if not that, there will likely be a Wikipedia article and a bunch of other sources confirming it. I’m sure there are good ones, but it’s largely just oil companies and banks and big tech funding some corrupt as hell “academics” in order to buy some credibility.
I loved when I got into with one person over climate change and all they could do was send me articles that use oil-backed think tanks and which quoted a climate scientist who’s such a huge liar that whole webpages exist to organize and debunk all his paid-for bullshit.
The video that lead me down this rabbit hole.
I got around to watching this video... without having seen this guy before (and therefore having no reason to take what he says at face value), and with the "source" in his description being almost unrelated to the video content, all that's left is that "Yoti is funded by trusts, Carnegie is a trust mentioned on Yoti's website."
That is conspiracy-theory level. The author doesn't even go so far as to draw actual conclusions; he's saying "we need to follow the money" which is reasonable, but you are saying "Carnegie invested in an age verifier and that's why they wrote the law." That's going well beyond the facts. You wouldn't stand for it when some moron tries to cast doubt on climate science and you shouldn't stand for it now just because it tickles your biases.
Quite possibly. But almost certainly a lot of Carnegie's money is going to companies who provide online services who now have much higher costs from doing age verification, content blocking and users fleeing, simply because there are a lot of companies in that position.