Olives @olives@qoto.org

Sounds important for U.K. people.

There's a new lobbying push for chat control at the E.U.

So, I think I'll cover some of misinfo being spread briefly.

1) It is argued that all is well with existing scanning / prevention initiatives.

It is inarguable that existing initiatives have not led to legitimate expression being censored or chilled. They very much have been.

2) It will lead to "technological improvements" in the future which will lead to fewer issues.

There is no evidence that this will happen, and even if it did, it still wouldn't resolve the core problems with this proposal.

3) Law enforcement agencies support it.

Yes, well, law enforcement will likely support anything which "might" be helpful, or which might reduce effort expended.

4) Accuracy rates are high.

Are they? Even if they were, at scale, it would still lead to many false positives, discriminative impacts, chilled expression, or disclosures of sensitive information to hostile governments.

5) The largest U.S. based companies already appear to do many of the things you want them to do here (although, I think there are quite a few areas where they go too far, I won't elaborate on it in this post).

I won't comment on whether that is a violation of privacy or not, however, isn't it misleading to suggest that little is being done?

6) Appealing to the notion that the Internet is a "lawless space".

The Internet has never been a "lawless space". The regulatory structure of the Internet tends to be the way it is to be protective of various human rights, such as due process, freedom of expression, and privacy.

Putting a disproportionate focus on "fighting child abuse" at "all costs" would push these contingencies out of alignment, and would create many harms in it's own right.

Further contrary to the notion of the Internet being a lawless space, cases of child abuse are vigorously investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement agencies from across the globe.

7) Public opinion supports it.

We've already been over how and why that survey is flawed. But, if you want a brief recap of one manner in which it is, the people who relied on it boasted about how they put a strong influence on people participating in it to answer a particular way.

8) End-to-end encryption is not threatened.

This is complete bullshit and everyone knows it. Playing silly little semantics games does not change that basic fact.

9) Prevention is a major focus of this proposal.

This sounds like a euphemism for censorship, privacy intrusions, and due process violations. This seems likely to hit legitimate use of a service. This makes me even warier of this proposal.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/arkansas-shouldnt-hastily-make-foia-less-functional Arkansas looking to undermine FOIA and make the government less transparent.

While I hold the government to a yet higher standard, particularly as they tend to be a very blunt instrument, I don't think it makes sense to let private platforms off for poor free expression either.

Have I ever mentioned how the standard for defending porn can be so cartoonishly high that you practically have to show reductions in crime or other unambiguously good things to defend it.

Puritans.

I think if the Internet has shown anything, it is that worries about minors and porn are greatly exaggerated.

https://reason.com/2023/09/08/california-lawmakers-approve-bill-decriminalizing-magic-mushrooms/

"California might soon become the third state to decriminalize natural psychedelics. On Thursday, lawmakers in the state Senate approved S.B. 58, which removes criminal penalties for the personal possession and use of psilocybin-containing mushrooms, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), and mescaline by people 21 years and older.

The state Assembly approved the bill on Wednesday."

""California's veterans, first responders, and others struggling with PTSD, depression, and addiction deserve access to these promising plant medicines," state Sen. Scott Wiener (D–San Francisco), the bill's author, said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times. "It's time to stop criminalizing people who use psychedelics for healing or personal well-being.""

"California is paring back onerous environmental reviews of new housing projects."

"Under the old regime, localities would have to study the impact of new subsidized housing when issuing permits for the housing and when funding the new housing."

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/634725 It's probably not too late to sign that petition to oppose the OSB I guess, although it might be time for another one soon.

Also, write to MPs and such to oppose the OSB. That'd be a good idea.

The think of the children people are actually mocking privacy activists for imagining that the British Government might not use the anti-privacy powers in the OSB.

I suggest taking note of that and pushing against this bill even harder.

The OSB is still awful.

New members have been appointed to the Australian Classification Board. The previous ones were appointed by a very right wing government, so I doubt anyone will miss them.

I'd say it's an anime about cute girls being cute.