Olives @olives@qoto.org
Software Engineer. Psy / Tech / Sex Science Enthusiast. Controversial?
Free Expression. Human rights / Civil Liberties. Anime. Liberal.
Joined May 2023
@gwit From the way you're speaking, I think you have a fundamentally flawed view of sexology? One perhaps inspired by QAnon or... sensationalism? (I've been thinking of writing a lengthy post on this for a while... And I might have to get on with it).
Being interested in a particular fantasy scenario isn't really "wanting" to go out to do something to someone. Much less so ever actually doing it. Also, censorship tends to punish innocent people.
@gwit I still think this is exploitative language to refer to media which might contain taboo themes (I'm not even sure this particular game is actually that provocative), but you know what, I'll let it pass for argument's sake.
If you read one of the citations I put in that post, I make a pretty thorough argument about how porn is not really a big deal. I could add additional ones. I think that is a good place to get started.
Honestly, you could make this argument about a whole bunch of things.
Let's say an actor is paid to play-act a rape, or someone draws an imaginary scenario. Or what if someone draws furry art, this depicts bestiality, does it not? These would both be things which society frowns upon.
That said, I don't think someone should censor fictional art which might involve either of these themes. Also, while you might think that I'm pulling this out just to talk to you, I have actually seen this very argument involving bestiality in the wild. It's not hypothetical.
Such a setting would be purely imaginary, divorced from reality, it's not the same as someone being victimized by someone. It's also likely to be quite fantasy, and I doubt someone is even comparing it to *that*. Typically, it is an outside figure who projects this sort of thing onto that. In fact, even looking a certain way, can be enough to get treated as "abuse" by those who lean towards doing so, again, it's very likely a fairly fantasy scenario of absurd things someone wouldn't want to do.
The "validation" argument (which I'm not quite understanding) doesn't make much sense to me. Does BDSM "validate" biastophilia (essentially rapephilia) because it has coercive attributes to it? In any case, I don't see how having some fictional media would suddenly make child abuse a "valid" thing. I think it is pretty straightforward why abuse is an awful thing. Even in the United States, where freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment, such acts are viewed with the utmost disgust and hatred. It's hard not to see how awful it is.
@gwit You said that in a context where it would be impossible for someone to have been abused. Plucking words out of context is not going to work here, troll.
@gwit This statement is defamatory and I can sue you for speaking these words.
Sensitive topics
@gwit This is a space for liberals (and good faith actors). This is not a space for fascistic bad faith actors who conflate art or adult porn with abuse.
Sensitive topics
@gwit It is always a government intrusion. Please don't come posting nonsense.
@gustavoturner https://qoto.org/@olives/111237363201450704 Looks like there may be puritanical Australian nonsense going on.
"The Kill Online Speech Act" Wow, that is a great alternate acronym for KOSA.
How nice of Electronic Frontiers Australia to have all that information there.
Looks like the game "Anime Maze Game - Visual 2D"(1) is being censored by Australia(2), probably because the system was built by freakin puritans (...
Looks like the game "Anime Maze Game - Visual 2D"(1) is being censored by Australia(2), probably because the system was built by freakin puritans (who worry about things which don't matter(3)).
As always, you can write to reps at the territory, state, and federal levels (4) to oppose any and all censorship.
1 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.DefaultCompany.HentaiGame1
2 https://www.refused-classification.com/censorship-timelines/game-iarc/
Olives
boosted
The "loaded answers" are particularly interesting here (it's a multiple choice style survey).
Let's say someone is asking a question about a policy. Normally, you would expect there to be "Yes" and "No" as options.
Here though, there is instead something like "Yes, I think children shouldn't suffer" and "No, I think children should suffer" (it's not quite that but it is pretty close to it).
So unethical. #chatcontrol
The "loaded answers" are particularly interesting here (it's a multiple choice style survey).
Let's say someone is asking a question about a policy. Normally, you would expect there to be "Yes" and "No" as options.
Here though, there is instead something like "Yes, I think children shouldn't suffer" and "No, I think children should suffer" (it's not quite that but it is pretty close to it).
So unethical. #chatcontrol
@glynmoody Conservatives ran a campaign saying that a bunch of terrible things would end up happening.
There appears to be another questionable survey, this time from a "think of the children" group (they're not known to carry out ethical surveys). I'm sure you will see it in the coming days. I don't want to give these kinds of vile and disingenuous people clicks though.
Some flaws (these are very likely not the only ones):
1) The first informatory segment is not neutral or particularly nuanced. It instead frames the situation in a propagandistic manner favorable to the ideology of this group. It also contains no negative drawbacks.
To understand why it is so problematic to present something in such a one-sided manner like this, and particularly without providing the long history of misleading claims and statements (or if we're to be less charitable, what we'd refer to as lies), we only need to refer to the example of "dihydrogen monoxide"(1).
2) One question conflates minors viewing online porn with abuse. This likely inflates the number of responses where minors are "more at risk" now. I've been over online porn not being a big deal (2).
3) The second informatory segment deceives the respondent about what content might be flagged by the algorithm. There is no mention of the heated discussion around false positives either. Also, they claim that only "a few providers do scanning" but there appears to be no actual evidence for this claim (though, even if they didn't, it's arguable they'd still have a right not to do so). They also leave out that these few providers which do appear to disproportionately account for the majority of known child abuse photos.
4) A question following this fails to note that most providers are probably already "preventing exploitation", though there are probably human rights considerations at play. No evidence is provided that they don't.
The only "evidence" I've seen in around three years, unrelated to this document, is a Canadian group bringing up a few anecdotes where specific pieces of content didn't appear to be moderated to their liking. This Canadian group is very activist and appears to have zero or little regard for the human rights implications of their actions, they've even been accused of censoring historic stamps which they erroneously identified as "child abuse".
At other times, this Canadian group talks in a vague manner like "broad" and "narrow", and do not actually say what sort of content they're flagging. This creates room for creative interpretations of "abuse" which don't actually involve abuse. They refuse to define these terms. One of their advisors (who appears to be very responsive to conservative concerns, even fringe ones, and has often been preoccupied by things like "ritual abuse" in schools) explicitly refers to things which are clearly not abuse as "abuse". They network with organizations which do this. I'm also aware that the executive director of this organization has met with E.U. reps very recently.
5) There's some nonsense about it "being possible to detect things within E2EE environments". In the real world, companies just wouldn't implement E2EE, because that is the most practical thing to do. It's a red herring argument in more ways than one.
6) Loaded questions intended to make you feel like a bad person for not agreeing with the premise. Inflates responses in line with the group's ideology.
This is not an exhaustive list of all problems with the #chatcontrol spying / censorship proposal (or this survey). I don't want to repeat all of that discourse in this post.
Ylva defends this as a "standard normal practice".
When you're being accused of engaging in unethical practices (and she seems very unethical, indeed), it doesn't seem like essentially saying "I do this all the time" is a particularly good defence...?
If it was up to me, I would have sacked Ylva a long time ago.
Cool to see U.N. Human Rights speaking in support of end-to-end encryption.
Imagine being a shill for Ylva and her bullshit.
Software Engineer. Psy / Tech / Sex Science Enthusiast. Controversial?
Free Expression. Human rights / Civil Liberties. Anime. Liberal.
Joined May 2023
