Olives @olives@qoto.org

Since I'm seeing bad faith actors wildly barking about "AI" and coming up with fantastical exaggerated "won't anyone please think of the children?" scenarios (though, not on the fediverse), I guess I'll boost this again.

https://netzpolitik.org/2023/einigung-im-eu-parlament-steht-bevor-chatkontrolle-nur-bei-verdacht/

1) That would only be the floor of where it might go. They could easily ask for more.

2) I worry this profiling system for porn site usage will hit far more legitimate usage (false positives) than it would any "nefarious usage". It's hard to imagine a porn site is a particularly good avenue for pursuing child porn photos reliably, especially a lot of it. This smells of religiously motivated lobbying.

3) It could still be extended to more content types (assuming they don't immediately find some "clever" way to do it here) and involves greater centralization.

4) Age verification for porn sites impinges on freedom of expression and privacy. This feels very moral panicky, a scientifically dubious moral panic (https://qoto.org/@olives/111083302650803082).

#chatcontrol

https://stopchatcontrol.eu Apparently, there is this new tool for opposing the #chatcontrol going around. It appears to have a petition and a tool for contacting lawmakers.

https://stopchatcontrol.eu There's even a change.org petition here (as well as options for contacting lawmakers to oppose the chat control).

https://stopchatcontrol.eu I don't know whether I agree with the use of GPT-3 here (mainly the potential for errors) but it's an interesting initiative.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67177330 Evil cop.

Looking deeply, there is a greater degree of conflation when it comes to "realism" and malfeasance, even when it is very far from being like a pseudo-photograph.

There is a certain level of conspiracy based on hearsay.

They admit they can be distinguished.

They appear to doubt their own arguments.

Also, seeing them making some strong claims, then saying things which would appear to contradict those claims (i.e. they're often images of someone who has been "de-aged") on pages people are less likely to read tucked in a sentence five paragraphs down.

Why do we let them get away with this?

Typically, people who push such arguments are fearmongers in quite a few areas.

They rarely isolate themselves to just one, and they have a history of misleading people, and making exaggerations, and fantasizing up catastrophic scenarios out of thin air, and of trying to stir the pot, so to speak.

Once you put aside the "novelty technology" bait which is designed to shutdown critical thinking, it becomes evidently clear that it's just them up to their old tricks.

Once you realize these exaggerated arguments actually go back thirty years, that the sky hasn't fallen since then, and actually the sky still isn't falling now, then it becomes easy to see it for what it really is.

It's honestly boring having to bunk the exact thing I've been bunking since early on in this year. That is why I wrote that lengthy post, so I don't need to.

Strong emphasis on the term potential because I'm not really convinced here. Again, vague language / terms. Lead you with a spooky anecdote, then let yourself fill that in with your imagination. If I didn't learn from their associates doing this, I would be stupid.

Another one. Thousands of potential pseudo-photographs on some apparently very obscure and fringe "dark web site". Even if we presume these numbers are accurate, this is a drop in the bucket by any metric.

This is the sort of nonsense (from extremely bad faith actors) which people cite when acting as if the sky is falling here. When they use over the top emotionally manipulative language like "it's out of control!".