Well, this is a new one. I do not believe I’ve ever heard the climate cult blame personalized ads before
How personalised ads are contributing to climate change
A new report from Global Action Plan analysing the scale of unnecessary emissions being generated by Big Tech’s business model has uncovered just how energy intensive it really is.
Recently, it’s become all but impossible to use social media without being constantly bombarded with ads.
And while online marketing is nothing new, you may have begun noticing that whenever you open up your favourite apps these days, the products being pushed onto you are scarily in line with your actual interests.
This is known as ‘surveillance capitalism,’ whereby companies pull together data on us from a myriad of sources to make a far more targeted bid.
It operates by algorithmically profiling users – monitoring, processing, and predicting our digital lives to coerce us into splashing the cash on items we weren’t even tempted by in the first place.
I mean, how often do you mention something in passing only for it to appear several minutes later on your Insta stories?
The interesting part is that most of the tech companies who are slamming you with personalized ads are run by leftists, and typically yammer about climate doom.
Besides, of course, the obvious role it plays in turbocharging unnecessary consumerism, which last year added an extra 32% to the annual carbon footprint of all UK citizens alone through the greenhouse gas emissions that result from the dramatic uplift in sales generated by it.
According to a report from Global Action Plan, Big Tech’s ‘toxic’ business model is extremely energy intensive.
Is there anything that the climate cult doesn’t complain about?
In this regard, Global Action Plan argues that Big Tech billionaires are the ‘oil barons of the 21st century’ and that their exponentially growing contribution to the climate crisis is making it harder for the rest of the world to take crucial action.
Urging activists to turn their attention to this multidimensional problem, the charity is focused on exposing the industry as a foundational blocker to meaningful change so that we can start holding the necessary people accountable.
‘Big Tech’s way of doing business is fundamentally at odds with efforts to stave off the deepening climate crisis. These platforms and their eye-watering profits rely on processing massive quantities of data at a huge direct carbon cost,’ says policy and campaigns lead, Oliver Hayes.
So, what, they want to stop the ads? Good luck!
Another pro Trump candidate loses bigly in an important swing state race
In Wisconsin the Supreme Court race went to the liberal candidate and have liberals their first majority in that court in 15 years.
Wisconsin under the GOP was one of THE most heavily gerrymandered states. The state Supreme Court will probably no longer allow that
Congratulations H, one step closer to a one party dictatorship. Good for you.
CarolAnn typed:
The Wisconsin Democrat won a 10 year term, overwhelmingly. Many reliable GOP counties flipped. In 2022, Dems took the majority in the Michigan legislature.
Dictatorship? Voters vote. We fully understand the right wing disdain for democracy as you are in a minority. This is why the minority right works overtime trying to suppress voters likely to vote for Democrats.
Here’s a suggestion for the nuGOP: have more popular policy proposals. We also fully understand that today’s reactionary right think they have THE answers and deserve minority rule. You’re ‘on a mission from God’. You have overplayed your hand on abortion and are paying for it at the ballot box.
The nuGOP holds minority positions on abortion, global warming, assault weapons, The Big Lie, tax cuts for the wealthy, public health, FBI, defense, Trump, gerrymandering, etc…
We get that the American right’s projection of their fervent desire for a conservative dictatorship onto the Democrats. But for now, voters vote.
Our esteemed host asked:
That was a rhetorical question, right?
One wonders: how did “they” determine what consumerism was “unnecessary”?
What the
global warmingclimate change activists don’t seem to realize is that “consumerism” means people’s, apparently other people’s, jobs. If consumers purchased less, then some people would lose their jobs.This is pretty much a common failing among the activists: they have no knowledge at all about economics. They are willing to impose additional costs on people, without realizing that a lot of people cannot afford those costs. Then, they want to force people to cut back on everything, without realizing that cutting back on things means that some people are going to lose their economic livelihoods entirely.
In the U.S., consumer spending is, and has been, some 2/3rds of GDP. This makes China happy!
The genie of interweb commerce will not be re-bottled. All your online information is everywhere, all the time.