I'm actually still in favor of just entirely scrapping chat control. It creates an authoritarian state apparatus (which still wouldn't make the problem go away). For truly malicious sites, it seems that efforts to take them down have been ramping up for years. It is also all too easy for the censorship to expand or for there to be collateral censorship.
On another note, it's interesting how the shills in favor of it are interested in *literally no middle ground*. They take on the most extreme positions and argue hard that it is the only correct position.
So-called "zero tolerance" positions are not necessarily good. Even web proxies seem to have been hit in 2022.
"What has the AfD done to stop chat control? To the contrary: the negotiator of your ID group has always spoken out strongly IN FAVOUR of the proposal."
I've seen one AfD in the E.U. Parliament speaking out in opposition to it in public but then that is one person. She is also very conspiratorial.
Also, I don't think someone needs the AfD to get someone with that position.
@gateklons You are in favor of a censorship bill which will lead to vast swathes of legitimate content being censored / chilled?
This is honestly horrifying, though it isn't surprising as DeSantis was also calling for drug smugglers to be shot and killed...
Simply locking more people up is not the answer to mental health... It also seems that it wouldn't have the benefits that he expects.
I've covered this a couple of times, but I never went into how creepy and opportunistic it was for IJM (International Justice Mission) to show up during #chatcontrol. As you might expect from a religious group (accused of having a history of exaggerating rates of sex trafficking (1) and being anti sex work) trying to get a foot in the door, they tried to conflate legitimate content with abuse (2).
For instance, they wanted to treat things like "written text" as "child porn". In practice, this would mean censoring things like stories written by victims / survivors (preferred term varies), literature, roleplay, fantasy, and so on. It also appears to have therapeutic value.
They also pointed to a "terminology guideline", which seems to really be a puritanical propaganda doc (a hideously out of touch one) intended to encourage countries to adopt extreme and harmful definitions (i.e. child not meaning an actual real child), which would be harmful (3,4). It's one of the most sinister things I've seen.
1 https://www.engadget.com/2019-05-31-sex-lies-and-surveillance-fosta-privacy.html
2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12726-Fighting-child-sexual-abuse-detection-removal-and-reporting-of-illegal-content-online/F3337815_en
3 https://qoto.org/@olives/111083302650803082
4 https://qoto.org/@olives/111192296198968801
@gateklons https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7mzpj/pornhub-content-deleted-verification
https://reason.com/2022/04/09/the-new-campaign-for-a-sex-free-internet/
Please, oh please, don't just echo puritan rhetoric. It is extremely harmful to people.
https://qoto.org/@olives/111321512784243641 The new paper linking a lack of independent activity without monitoring / control to depression / suicidal ideation might be of interest to the #chatcontrol crowd.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2023/10/24/youth-mental-health-independence/
"For years, Peter Gray, a research professor of psychology and neuroscience at Boston College, has been closely following two disturbing trends: the dwindling of independent activity and play afforded to children over the past half-century, and the accelerating rise in mental health disorders and suicides among youth during that same period."
"There are familiar factors that surface in discussions of the youth mental health crisis in America, with screen use and social media often topping the list of concerns."
https://qoto.org/@olives/111307215953208580
Gray actually mentioned in his paper that it had nothing to do with those, and put in a bunch of studies showing that. You have to read a fair bit in but it's there.
"But Gray suspects a deeper underlying issue: The landscape of childhood has transformed in ways that are profoundly affecting the way children develop — by limiting their ability to play independently, to roam beyond the supervision of adults, to learn from peers, and to build resilience and confidence."
@SirTapTap@mastodon.social @SirTapTap@misskey.art Add a few more things and New Steam will complete, lol.
"In the wake of a mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, that killed 18 people, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has called for more involuntary institutionalization."
"Yet involuntary institutionalization isn't likely to help either. Indeed, making it easier to toss people into mental institutions against their will raises even greater concerns for due process."
""A 2017 task force report on the involuntary referrals of children under Florida's Baker Act found that one-third of them were not necessary," according to a recent article by Kaitlin Gibbs of the University of Florida Levin College of Law. "Many children are Baker Acted more than once, which shows the initial Baker Act may not have successfully treated children with mental illness. At least thirty percent of all children Baker Acted will have a repeat Baker Act within five years.""
"Nor is throwing people into mental wards likely to reduce the number of mass shootings. As Ragy Girgis, a clinical psychiatrist at Columbia University, wrote in 2022, "Serious mental illness—specifically psychosis—is not a key factor in most mass shootings or other types of mass murder." And while 25 percent of mass shootings "are associated with non-psychotic psychiatric or neurological illnesses, including depression," he notes that "in most cases these conditions are incidental.""
"If DeSantis' plan were enacted, the likely result would be a rapid increase in the unnecessary institutionalization of mentally ill individuals—and a negligible impact on criminal violence. If taking people's guns is a violation of their rights, forcing them into a mental facility surely is too."
"volume" "frequency" Any measures would be very burdensome for a provider (and could even be used in a harassing manner on a flimsy basis).
Even more so when there are multiple layers of providers involved, as this can incur great technical obstacles.
That's sort of a guardrail, though not a perfect one.
@SirTapTap One of the universe's greatest mysteries.
@SirTapTap "Where are my flying cars?! You told me there'd be flying cars in the future, damn it!"
@SirTapTap I don't see the problem, cough, cough, cough. Sounds pretty cool, hehehehe.
In fairness, I'm not against tagging (lol), though as we live in Hell, I wonder if that mightn't attract negativity and abuse. I guess you need a good mod to wrangle those bigots.
Though, I suspect the reason is much more mundane. I don't see people tagging a whole lot, and no, I'm not talking about porn, violence, or this, that. So, maybe it is that.
Also, do you mean... Guro... by R18-G...? Who even likes that... Well, I guess I know of people who go looking at that who are cool.
And then, there are people, like Olives, who really dislikes it. Olives also very much does not like censorship. So, that is very fun.
Software Engineer. Psy / Tech / Sex Science Enthusiast. Controversial?
Free Expression. Human rights / Civil Liberties. Anime. Liberal.