Olives @olives@qoto.org

The entire bill should be scrapped and set on fire. As it deserves. It's such a brazen abuse of state power.

@trinsec https://blog.google/intl/en-ca/company-news/outreach-initiatives/an-update-on-canadas-bill-c-18-and-our-search-and-news-products/

Well, it's nice that Musk is belatedly pushing back on the DSA (it's big, nasty, and censorious).

Twitter requires you to login now? What is this guy thinking...

https://reason.com/2023/06/30/chicago-police-raided-at-least-21-wrong-houses/

"Chicago SWAT teams relying on unverified search warrants to ransack houses; hold families, including children, at gunpoint; and, in one case, handcuff an 8-year-old child. In another case, 17 Chicago police officers burst into a family's house with their guns drawn during a 4-year-old's birthday party."

U.S. Supreme Court rules that affirmative action in college admissions violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

1) They shouldn't sell them to under 18s. I'm surprised that would be a thing in Ireland.
2) Meh. I don't have a strong opinion on this.
3) I don't agree with banning flavoured vape liquids.

Apparently, Reddit is breaking privacy laws by restoring deleted posts after someone deletes them.

https://reason.com/2023/06/29/florida-cop-jails-toddler-son-for-poopy-pants/

1) Uhhh.... I'm not sure it's appropriate to use jails for family discipline.

2) Well, yeah, Snapchat shouldn't be held liable for simply providing a "disappearing message" function.

If someone abuses it, as this teacher did to send a "sexually explicit image" to a student, she is responsible for doing so.

Apparently, Google is going to block all links to Canadian news sites.

I just saw a supremely dumb civil rights take from an infamous Australian academic.

Don't worry about being oppressed or the government abusing it's power, or building safeguards to prevent that.

Just vote for someone else.

Ughhhhh.

Even though they might feel very similar, there are important differences between a religious ministry and a government ministry.

One of those "won't anyone please think of the children?" people pointed to a hundred people getting arrested on Discord for apparently being part of child porn rings and said "See! See! This shows the abuse there is completely out of control".

Completely ignoring that Discord is a platform with tens of millions of people or more.

Sigh.

https://edri.org/our-work/the-eus-internal-market-committee-votes-for-protecting-encryption-in-the-csa-regulation/
"As stipulated by the Court of Justice, IMCO MEPs say that tools must be able to distinguish between lawful and unlawful content without the need for independent human assessment."
This encourages firms to stop doing independent human assessments and to exaggerate the accuracy rate of their algorithms...

Also, any algorithm may fall over at scale. It is also still a violation of privacy.

Noting that sinister language like grooming obscures what they're really doing, which is probably looking for someone behaving inappropriately with minors.

They had one statistic where adults simply talking to minors was treated as a potential grooming event x.x

Instead of saying any of that though, they decided to self-immolate by making it appear as if they didn't care about child abuse.

I still remember when the British Police said that investigating grooming is not their problem. It's Facebook's problem.

...

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/28/social-media-was-useful-for-me-as-an-ill-nerdy-teenager/ Social media restrictions might be harmful to minors with health conditions.

"The question presented is whether the First Amendment still requires proof that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements. We hold that it does, but that a mental state of recklessness is sufficient. The State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence."

The U.S. Supreme Court appears to have decided that for something to qualify as a "true threat", it has to involve a certain degree of recklessness that it would be interpreted as a threat by a neutral bystander, or involve intent.