Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/15/steamed-hams-except-its-the-eu-commissions-alleged-csam-regulation-experts/

"The Commission has always claimed its anti-encryption, pro-client-side scanning stance is backed by sound advice given to it by the experts it has consulted."

"In other words, the EU took what it liked and included it. The rest of it disappeared from the permanent record, supposedly because the EU Commission routinely purges any email communications more than two years old. This is obviously ridiculous in this context, considering this particular piece of legislation has been under discussion for far longer than that.

But, in the end, the EU Commission wins because it’s the larger bureaucracy. The ombudsman refused to issue a recommendation. Instead, it instructs the Commission to treat the ICCL’s request as “new” and perform another search for documents. “Swiftly.” Great, as far as that goes. But it doesn’t go far. The ombudsman also says it believes the EU Commission when it says only its version of the EUIF report survived the periodic document cull.

In the end, all that survives is this: the EU consulted with affected entities. It asked them to comment on the proposal. It folded those comments into its presentation. It likely presented only comments that supported its efforts. Dissenting opinions were auto-culled by EU Commission email protocols. It never sought further input, despite having passed the two-year mark without having converted the proposal into law. All that’s left, the ombudsman says, is likely a one-sided version of the Commission’s proposal. And if the ICCL doesn’t like it, well… it will have to find some other way to argue with the “experts” the Commission either ignored or auto-deleted. The government wins, even without winning arguments. Go figure."

#chatcontrol

You must not have one of your researchers allegedly* experiment on minors 70 years ago, we will punish you very harshly for that forever.

If you're driving them to suicide with fringe religious therapies today, that is perfectly okay.

*Seems to have been debunked.

#Kinsey / #KinseyInstitute

https://reclaimthenet.org/nikki-haley-demands-an-end-to-online-anonymity
This would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects anonymous speech (and rightly so).

Anonymity is important for free expression, and activism.

https://qoto.org/@olives/111407938871651520
I've covered why "age verification" (which is similar to this) is problematic here. The arguments there also apply here. As I've mentioned elsewhere, scammers are also known to impersonate "age verification" providers.

"The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression. Mandatory ID verification on social media could be seen as a form of censorship, limiting individuals’ ability to speak freely online. Historically, the Supreme Court has been protective of anonymous speech as a vital part of the freedom of expression, as seen in cases like Talley v. California (1960) and McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995). These cases underscore the right to distribute anonymous literature and the protection of anonymous speech, respectively."

"Related to the First Amendment, there’s a historical precedent for the right to anonymity in political speech. In the Federalist Papers, for example, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote under the pseudonym “Publius” to argue for the ratification of the Constitution itself. Without the right to anonymity, there would be no America as we know it."

#privacy

"If it was Australia" Well, it's still a useful one to have in there, just in case.

What's the new one. Oh, "think of the children" guy upset that tech companies, like the rest of us, didn't move so smoothly during the pandemic, and were impacted somewhat? by restrictions to help prevent the virus from spreading.

Blames them entirely for not having perfect moderation and management. I think, at this point, they're just looking for excuses to try to cast them as the bad guys.

https://nichegamer.com/dlsite-forced-to-block-german-users/
This German #WarOnPorn nonsense is just getting embarrassing at this point. Won't they just fire Tobias Schmid already? This wacky extremist is making the conservatives in the anglosphere look progressive.

Firstly, even if online porn "might" be problematic to someone out there, it would still not be anywhere remotely near proportionate to engage in censorship, or privacy intrusive measures.

Secondly, the typical recommendation is sex education, not censorship (which is harmful in it's own ways).

Thirdly, the science isn't really showing this:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2015.1023427
https://psyarxiv.com/ehqgv/
Two studies showing porn is not associated with sexism. One carried out by German scientists, another carried out by Canadians.

https://qoto.org/@olives/110462274531891870
American scientists carried out a meta analysis of 59 studies. They found porn isn't associated with crime. A meta analysis is a study where someone studies studies.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31432547/
Nor does it seem this is the case among adolescents (the meta analysis also points to that). Here, the minors who used more porn engaged in less sexual aggression.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault
https://qoto.org/@olives/110400288665794817
There are even studies (across the United States, Japan, Finland, and more) showing that porn is associated with less crime, even among criminals.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31042055/
While an older Dutch study showed there might be worse levels of "sexual satisfaction" among adolescents using porn, a Croatian lab failed to replicate that.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563222001637
This is a meta analysis on sexualization in video games. It finds that studies tend to pick cutoffs where it's difficult to distinguish signal from noise. This increases the number of false positives.

There are also results which contradict the theory of sexualization being harmful. In the end, it fails to find a link between this and sexism, and this and mental well-being.

I'm usually sceptical of apparent links, as the "scientific pile on effect" (as one described it) drives people to go looking for "links" between porn and "something bad" however tenuous it might be, or methodologically flawed an approach it might be (and later, that something is debunked).

If it was Australia, I might add it doesn't matter if they're "child-like" or "fictional children" (this is far, far more likely to hit someone good than someone bad who don't need it). If it was actual real children, I would oppose that on ethical grounds (though, I still wouldn't want to burn down the Internet, because of unwanted bad actors). This is covered above but it is also kind of common internet sense.

Fourthly, "age verification" can also be harmful (and often unconstitutional). Scammers have been known to launch scams using this theme. It is also a violation of someone's right to freedom of expression, privacy, and puts them at a security risk.

@pimterry It's good news for Tuta's business but it's still a bad deal for the rest of us.

For instance, things like encrypted backups / hosting might still be impacted.

https://qoto.org/@olives/111408048820298460 Also, "age verification" for porn has been snuck in by, what I presume, were right wingers.

There is also still room for over-reach.

#ChatControl

They're even trying to justify this extreme law by... Pointing to how someone might send mean messages to a politician.

https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-government-proposals-would-allow-it-to-mass-surveil-all-users-of-an-internet-service-within-specific-timeframe

"The UK government has presented draft amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) – otherwise known as “Snoopers Charter,” a highly controversial piece of legislation allowing for wide-scale spying by intelligence agencies.

The plan now is to specify that the authorities have the right to carry out mass surveillance of an internet service within a specific timeframe – and do so “dragnet-style,” by spying on all users of that service during a given time."

"One of the things that came out of the plan being publicly presented by the UK’s king last Tuesday was that there was an idea to introduce the power of veto if and when privately-owned (mostly US) social platforms decide to usher in some “privacy-friendly” features.

Some reports mention that one of the proposed provisions would mean that should globally operating tech/social media companies decide to increase security of their products (the implication here is not difficult to make – it highly likely refers to encryption), they would have to have the UK spying community’s “blessing” first."

#privacy

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/14/uk-government-leaders-say-investigatory-powers-act-isnt-awful-enough-announce-plans-to-make-it-worse/

"The UK government thinks the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act is due for an overhaul. But it has plenty of opposition. Some of the proposed amendments actually appear to be illegal. And at least one major tech company has threatened to exit the market if the proposed amendments become law."

"According to this fact sheet, service providers will now be required to retain certain internet browsing records created by their users."

"The proposed changes would also expand the definition of bulk personal datasets (BPDs) to cover data collected by third parties, like data brokers. And, while this isn’t technically a “new” power it is definitely an expansion of the government’s existing power"

"The bill would also increase the duration of a BPD warrant from six to twelve months"

"“Greater operational agility” is just a fancy way of saying “make things easier.” When you start altering the rules to increase law enforcement efficiency, you tend to turn protected rights into privileges that only need to be respected when they’re not inconveniencing law enforcement.

None of this is law. Yet. But it’s clear those heading the government firmly believe this is the right way to go."

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/13/new-israeli-law-makes-consuming-terrorist-content-a-criminal-offense/

"And now we learn that Israel’s government has taken the next step in amending its counterterrorism laws to make the consumption of “terrorist” content a criminal offense, punishable with jail time."

"Make no mistake, this is the institution of thought crime. Read those two paragraphs one more time and realize just how much the criminalization of consumption of materials relies on the judgement and interpretation of those enforcing it. What is systematic in terms of this law? What is a publication? What constitutes a “terrorist organization,” not in the case of Hamas and ISIL, but in that ominous bit at the end of the second paragraph, where more organizations can — and will — be added to this list?

And most importantly, how in the world is the Israeli government going to determine “circumstances that indicate identification with the terrorist organization?”"

"This has all the hallmarks of America’s overreaction to the 9/11 attacks. We still haven’t unwound, not even close, all of the harm that was done in the aftermath of those attacks, all in the name of safety. We are still at a net-negative value in terms of our civil liberties due to that overreaction."

https://qoto.org/@olives/111083302650803082 Porn is not linked to bad things.
https://qoto.org/@olives/111191543236620885 Multiple thousand word commentary on conflations.

Two useful ones for #Altersverifikation as there are bad faith actors who like to conflate porn / fiction / fantasy with abuse (when it's really freedom of expression).

Training a model on personal social media posts (text) might lead to privacy leaks, so I'd suggest against this practice (hopefully, it's not a thing, or too much of a thing).

https://qoto.org/@olives/111083302650803082 A short anti-porn starter kit. Convenient as other threads can be heavier. This was actually intended to deal with one specific situation. Could say that about the other one too, honestly.

https://qoto.org/@olives/111191543236620885 Dive into why muddling abuse with fiction (mentions the bad actors who deliberately try to muddy the waters by conflating the two) is bad. Thousands of words.

I think that Palestine has always been an example of a spot where hate speech standards tend to get really fuzzy.

It's just far more apparent now with the current conflict.

Since Germany is accused of blocking porn sites, seemingly because of a crazy rogue official, I think it is a good idea to always contact lawmakers to oppose that (and any other censorship).

Maybe, it has something to do with that really weird obscure bureaucrat who was abusing his power.