Show newer
Olives

@tdverstynen reason.com/2024/01/17/ai-fraud Elizabeth's dissection of a proposed bill gives a good explanation of the sort of things you run into when coming up with a law.

I think things like harassment are probably already illegal, and are probably easier to legislate for (i.e. malicious intent), than more general cases.

1
Olives

cbsnews.com/chicago/news/bill-

"Indiana residents may soon have to verify their ages before going on adult websites.

A bill aimed at keeping children off pornographic websites passed overwhelmingly in the Indiana State Senate, and will soon be headed to the state House of Representatives. But the measure is not without its critics.

Some of those critics argue the bill violates the U.S. Constitution, and worry what will happen to the data these websites would be collecting."

"Ruane also argues the requirements could violate the access rights of some adults.

Some examples of such adults, she said, are "people without a without a government-issued ID, people with certain disabilities, people whose faces are not properly assessed by the facial recognition technology that might be that might be used by some of these services.""

0
Olives boosted
Eric Goldman (OLD ACCOUNT)

The post wasn't safe for LinkedIn 😂

Show thread
1
Olives

eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/eff- EFF and Access Now warn United Nations Human Rights Council of the dangers of bills like (and some other types of bills too).

0
Olives boosted
Meccha Japan

Yu-Gi-Oh! Sky Striker Ace Roze Figure - Coming Soon!
#YuGiOh #SkyStrikerAce

0
Olives

I'm seeing some misleading information about one of Turdbook's sites. For instance, it is alleged that Turdbook's "child porn warning" message only appeared when someone "searched for that", and they could have just "blocked it entirely". That is not true. Not remotely. They used a very fuzzy heuristic that would otherwise block a lot of legitimate content (and I doubt would even really have an impact on that other thing). It is known that there are a number of such cases.

Unfortunately, Turdbook appears to be really bad at communicating what is going on, so I guess I have to do their job for them <_<

0
Olives

reason.com/2024/01/31/disney-c

"A federal judge dismissed Disney's lawsuit against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on the grounds that the entertainment giant did not have sufficient standing to bring the First Amendment challenge.

In the lawsuit, Disney argued that DeSantis had unconstitutionally retaliated against the company by organizing a state takeover of the special taxing district that had been created in 1967 and covered the 25,000-plus acres now occupied by the Walt Disney World resort's theme parks, hotels, and various other facilities. Disney claimed that DeSantis had engaged in a "relentless campaign to weaponize government power against Disney" in response to Disney's then-CEO Bob Chapek publicly criticizing DeSantis' approval of a law that restricted discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools.

In Wednesday's ruling, federal Judge Allen Winsor wrote that Disney fell short of proving the retaliation claim. Disney, he wrote, "has not alleged any specific actions the new board took (or will take) because of the governor's alleged control.""

"Meanwhile, Disney has vowed to appeal the ruling."

0
Olives

thehill.com/homenews/state-wat

"Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) is suing five Texas cities over their decriminalization of marijuana.

In a Wednesday press release, the office of the attorney general (OAG) said it was suing the cities for “instructing police not to enforce Texas drug laws concerning possession and distribution of marijuana.""

I don't see how culture warring over this issue is going to end particularly well for him.

0
Olives

thehill.com/regulation/court-b

"A federal judge on Wednesday tossed Disney’s lawsuit against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) that accused him and other officials of unconstitutionally retaliating against the company for political reasons.

U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor, an appointee of former President Trump, ruled Disney lacked legal standing to sue DeSantis and that the company’s free speech claims also failed on the merits."

0
Olives

I have to say that seeing the events of the past few days, although with knowledge of the past six years, with social media really does not fill me with confidence that the "everything app" is the right way to go.

1
Olives

Do you remember this?

Rasmus Fleischer  
Arlanda Airport in Stockholm is covered by anti-#ChatControl billboards.
0
Olives boosted
Olives

psychologytoday.com/us/blog/al
As far as porn is concerned, some studies even indicate lower crime rates and abusers having consumed *less* porn than other groups.

I'm less concerned about that though, and more whether anyone's been harmed by it. If it involves consenting adults / non-existent people, I think that's fine.

I don't really care about particular kinks, even if they're real weird to me, hey, whatever makes someone happy.

1
Olives boosted
Olives

Some points about censoring fictional content there (censorship is a bad idea):

1) It might fuel someone's persecution complex. The idea of a dangerous world where people are out to get them. Feeds anxiety, alienation. It's happened a fair bit. It doesn't actually do anything positive.

2) Someone might see someone as an idiot or crazy (that's not wrong, lol). In any case, it poisons the well as someone is not seen to be credible or competent in these matters at all.

3) It violates someone's free expression. People have these things called rights, that's important.

4) Bad people don't need it. They can still do bad things. Good people are who'd suffer.

5) It violates the Constitution. Multiple constitutions.

6) Punishing someone because they resemble someone unpleasant isn't good. Also, due process still applies, in any case...

7) Can be a coping mechanism.

Olives  
I see the "age verification" language now (or that posted on social media), it doesn't seem to cover porn containing sites per se (although, maybe ...
0
Olives boosted
Olives

Ugh... There's more puritanical nonsense, so it looks like I have to debunk that again...

First off, 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. Especially, as it can be important free expression to someone.

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

Thirdly, the science isn't really showing that porn is this awful thing:

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108
psyarxiv.com/ehqgv/
Two studies showing porn is not associated with sexism. One carried out by German scientists, another carried out by Canadians.

qoto.org/@olives/1104622745318
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.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/314325
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.

psychologytoday.com/us/blog/al
qoto.org/@olives/1104002886657
There are even studies (across the United States, Japan, Finland, and more) showing that porn is associated with less crime, even among criminals.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/310420
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.

sciencedirect.com/science/arti
This is a meta analysis on sexualization in video games. It finds that studies tend to pick cut-offs 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 also 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, or the "link" is a phantom due to methodological limitations).

I could 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, and a bad actor could still do bad things). If it was actual real children, I'd oppose that on ethical grounds (though, I still wouldn't want to burn down the Internet / sites, because of unwanted bad actors). This is covered above but it is also kind of common internet sense.

Fourthly, while I'm not making a point about anything in particular, to inoculate you against potential problematic arguments, it's worth mentioning the basic precept that correlation does not imply causation.

Let's use ice cream as an example. Everyone loves ice cream, right? Well, I like ice cream.

Anyway, ice cream is correlated with crime. No one would say ice cream causes people to go out and commit crimes though. Just because there is a "correlation" doesn't mean it is meaningful (curiously, both are apparently also correlated with warmer weather, some think that is the real culprit here). And that's not the only way in which correlation might not imply causation. That might come in useful somewhere...

Fifthly, here's one just for : reason.com/2015/07/23/despite- Basically, U.S. data shows teens having less sex with each other (in a world with more porn).

0
Olives boosted
Olives

While I generally don't dive into this, I saw a few bad faith remarks which are so outrageous that I feel compelled to respond.

First off, when talking of abuse, can we not conflate fantasy (i.e. non-existent people) with reality? This is not only defamatory (someone was sued over something similar in 2021, as it turns out, if you flat out lie about someone like that, that can lead to legal trouble), it's a recipe for disseminating misleading information, wrong, impinges on fundamental rights (freedom of expression, privacy, due process, and maybe more), and wastes resources / money in the worst possible way.

Those who push this tend to be very bad faith actors. The worst is when someone is scared of a "written story"(1) or a "cartoon"(2). These are fairly common and mundane things. This just shows how extreme someone's position really is.

I think it's time to grow up, adapt to the world, and not cosplay as a Karen from the 90s who'd get offended about everything. It also has nothing to do with crime (3,4).

Then, there're cases where someone thinks that because something involves some novel technology, such as "AI" or "VR", they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes, and advocate for someone to have zero rights.

So, let's talk about this too.

I've commented on VR safety before (5), now my ideas here might not be the best. Still, it's likely better than demanding someone to magically "fix something", to rattle the drum, and to demonize random people incoherently. Not a high bar, huh.

I'm also seeing terms like "VR CSAM". One of the problems with using exploitative language like "CSAM" (the term "CSAM" itself appears to originate from Australia) here is that we literally have no clue what the hell someone is talking about, especially if they talk like that to talk about someone who doesn't exist in the same breath (and we know they do this).

This is a very big problem, among a few bad actors, who appear to do this very deliberately. Is it that someone has found some creative way to get child porn (18 U.S.C. 2251) in, as unlikely as that is? Or is it something fictional, which we've known about, and we know is not that uncommon?

Intuitively, this doesn't seem like it'd be a particularly good medium for this. Someone could project it onto a plane, however, this would be of particularly low quality, in comparison to viewing something on a regular monitor.

Considering every violation of 2251 is a potential risk to someone, what is the motivation for someone to take on this particular risk? Why risk being dragged up on a scary law for something which provides little additional value? For the sake of being evil?

While depicting someone as a cartoon villain might be appealing as a tool to serve a political end (6), cartoon villains tend to be beings which exist within the world of cartoons, not the real world.

Even supposing someone did do that, few would likely do it, and I don't see why someone wouldn't be able to punish them for this specifically. More crucially, a problematic person would be distinct from non-problematic people, just as someone who watches murder flicks is distinct from actual murderers (though, this might not be the best example to use here).

Also, like black markets in relation to drugs (7,8), it doesn't feel like pushing things underground here could possibly do any good.

There are a few other potential points, however, in interest of not repeating myself, I will point out that the points I have already made here are also applicable to them. This likely doesn't apply to just the preceding portion.

Onto the next one, "AI", I initially treated this one (9) in the same fashion as with (2), although I later changed my approach as it was insufficient for dealing with this.

First, I had to address the issue of potential pseudo-photographs *(10), a phenomena which is vanishingly rare (11), and distinct from other communities (11,12), though mentioned examples of pseudo-photographs tend to be anecdotal with a sensationalistic leaning, and tends to conflate possession with distribution.

Among other things, these factors made arguments along these lines pretty moot and inherently disproportionate. Also, whenever the State gets involved, it is usually a recipe for trouble, the State is generally not going to help (13).

* This term is used inconsistently on here.

Also, it's not as if this itself isn't exaggerated.

One concern trolling argument, originating from the early 90s (and occasionally dusted off for dramatic effect, despite it's lack of substance), appeals to the possibility that it might be "inconvenient" for cops. This ignores though that in around thirty years, this has never really been a problem. We also shouldn't be architecting society for the convenience of cops.

It also ignores the police have never had more tech (which they use and expand) than they do now to investigate leads (they're drowning in them), only focusing on "inconvenient" hypotheticals. Even more problematically, it's a "War on Drugs" kind argument (14,15), and they already have tools to deal with it in pertinent cases (no, they don't need an obscenity law to do this, good grief).

Quite a few arguments don't actually make sense, especially when they try to conflate them with things which aren't even close to looking like pseudo-photographs. This makes clear such arguments are not intended to go after that. They're just pretexts for censorship.

There is also a bit of conflation between "sexually harassing a minor" and "generative content". It's important to point out the former conduct seems to be illegal. It's also not a protected expression. Also, what does an evil thing someone does have to do with anyone else (quintessential "guilt by association"). Also, it's a sensationalistic anecdote and it doesn't require this.

There is also a bit of appeal to the stigmatizing and pseudo-scientific concept of "deviance". It's a lazy approach where someone tries to conflate a bunch of random sexual phenomena in a vain attempt to try to demonize it all. It's an attempt to remove nuance (16,17,18,19,20,21) from complex discussions.

"deviance" itself has it's roots in traditional religious morality, where any form of sexuality which differs from the "norm" (which isn't a real thing) is "deviant", "warranting suspicion", or "malevolent". This is why this concept is inherently problematic. It seems to either spread from extreme religious figures, or individuals who spend a lot of time in their company.

"deviance" also lends itself to someone picking out sensationalistic anecdotes (which are otherwise quite irrelevant), simply because these might be more salient to them, or because they think it might serve their argument. Like this though, someone could literally make anything, even drinking water, look bad. In fact, though this is unrelated to this, there was a parody where someone spoke about "water" with spooky and ominous sounding language and asked to ban it (22).

Strangely enough, people seem to feel better, and may even engage in the activities these religious people don't like less, when they accept themselves, a key component of ACT (30,31,32).

Nonetheless, trying to police what adults do in the privacy of their own homes, when they're not bothering anyone else, purely on moral whims is surely something to move past. Who is anyone else to tell someone what they can and cannot do based on an antiquated form of morality?

As for chatbots generating fantastical scenarios, I rebuked someone for virtue signalling and pretending this is "exploitation" (33). It's not. It's someone playing with a chatbot to create some absurd and ridiculous scenario. It's a mundane recreational activity although, it can have therapeutic benefits.

One of the main reasons I rebuked them, is because they played dumb, played stupid, when some company engaged in censorship, and it triggered a not small scandal, and for the very *reason* of therapeutic benefits to a few customers. You can't cover something and completely ignore something so relevant to the subject matter like that.

I'll also deduct points from the person who believes that moving your eyes back and forth is a "miracle cure."

When I say that debunking things takes time and resources, I really do mean that, as can be evidenced by this very post. Frankly, I'm of the opinion these people tend to be bad faith actors, and know damn well they're talking crap. People should stop letting them get away with it.

1 qoto.org/@olives/1111455837586

2 qoto.org/@olives/1111507626781

3 qoto.org/@olives/1110833026508

4 qoto.org/@olives/1111646748868

5 qoto.org/@olives/1110166376361

6 thedailybeast.com/how-qanon-be

7 qoto.org/@olives/1103887123509

8 qoto.org/@olives/1111793498297

9 qoto.org/@olives/1106160562428

10 qoto.org/@olives/1107402744134

11 nichegamer.com/attorney-genera

12 jere.my/generative-ai-and-chil

13 qoto.org/@olives/1110520137448

14 qoto.org/@olives/1111310271743

15 qoto.org/@olives/1111391253047

16 qoto.org/@olives/1111345006960

17 psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/

18 psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/

19 psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/

20 psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/

21 psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/ Though, someone pointed out that 90% is cherry-picked from a study from 20 years ago, and it wasn't a representative sample, to start with. Also, extreme religious figures are capable of using / parroting secular sounding arguments.

22 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrog

30 sciencedirect.com/science/arti

31 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/297020

32 psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/

33 qoto.org/@olives/1106751593051

1
Olives boosted
The Fandom Post

HIDIVE Debuts ‘#SundayWithoutGod’ #Anime Streaming Today dlvr.it/T24hWF

0
Olives boosted
Meccha Japan

OMORI - BASIL POP UP PARADE Figure🌼 Preorder Available!
🛑meccha-japan.com/en/figures/12
#OMORI #BASIL #Game

0
Olives boosted
Gabriel Bodeen

It should be! (Though I don't know how the courts have ruled.)

I'm tempted to call my representatives about this case. They're all GOP, I don't believe they care, but their staff will at least politely listen. 🤷‍♂️

0
Olives boosted
Olives

reason.com/2023/07/26/he-spent Isn't it unconstitutional to lock someone up for a decade without a trial?

1
Olives boosted
Olives

thefire.org/news/victory-after FIRE has been busy beating unconstitutional ordinances.

Show thread
0
Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.

Trending now

Resources

Developers

What is Mastodon?

qoto.org

More…

v3.5.19-qoto · Privacy policy