Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://edri.org/our-work/temporary-eprivacy-derogation-companies-like-facebook-must-never-indiscriminately-scan-peoples-private-messages/ Given the allegations against them, I'm more concerned about Google's conduct, particularly that from 2019 / 2020, than that of Facebook. That said, I saw parents complaining a few years ago about Facebook's censorship algorithm being over the top. It's also been reported that Facebook has the same issue which Google did when the Ninth Circuit ruled the Fourth Amendment was violated when Google didn't bother to check the matches prior to sending them off.

"If despite all the concerns raised, the legislator still deems these measures to be essential and effective, then commercial entities should be required to implement them."

I don't really agree with this principle. A regulation which restricts when they can do this might help to check their power, however, "forcing" to surveil only really shifts the power from Big Tech to Big Government. That is probably not the only problem with that. It's kind of like a check and balance (although, I don't expect these companies to particularly look out for people's expressive or privacy rights).

It is also worth mentioning that some courts will not accept evidence that involves mass surveillance, as that is seen as a violation of people's rights, and that might even result in criminals getting away. This mainly applies to the "chat control 2.0".

No, it is not "saving the children" this time (names like this are usually a red flag for that), instead it is supposed to "save the women".

https://reason.com/2024/02/12/protect-act-could-require-removal-of-all-existing-porn-online/ That doesn't sound good, it also still seems unconstitutional.

https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/12/dutch_insurers_breast_cancer/

"Dutch health insurers are reportedly forcing breast cancer patients to submit photos of their breasts prior to reconstructive surgery despite a government ban on precisely that.

That sounds pretty bad but it gets worse: These insurers keep losing their copies of these highly intimate pictures, one way or another.

Some insurers don't use secure websites and/or other means of electronic communications to transfer these very sensitive photos, according to the Netherlands public broadcaster NOS. Patients reported that their insurance companies have lost their photos, and denied their requests for reconstructive surgeries following a breast-cancer diagnosis."

#privacy #netherlands

Apparently, there is a protest against a regulation which Japan put on the porn industry on how long a studio has to wait before a film (with an actual actress) is published (over a month). It is said to be driving a black market, of interfering with people's livelihoods, and of being an undue burden on businesses (it is even said to violate Article 22 of the Constitution).

It appears it is going to be reviewed soon, and a member of the House of Councilors (the upper house) is already strongly critical of it. I remember an article from some time ago where people from, I think, the Constitutionalist Democratic Party mocked it.

I don't even want to talk about U.S. politics at this point, although Trump seems like the greater of two evils.

While Matrix itself has a few issues (would like to see them operate out of a freer country), something I like about the Matrix approach is that groups are hosted on *preferably neutral infra which, if it moderates, moderates to the law or not much more*, and then, someone in those groups does the actual moderation.

This way, you can decouple the *moderation* from the *infrastructure*, where with the fediverse, these two are tangled together.

It is worth mentioning that weird admins with weird ideas of moderation is literally driving people (including journalists) away from the fediverse.

So, that isn't the discussion I wanted to have, but maybe, it is the one we all deserve.

https://fieldnotes.resistant.tech/federation-is-the-worst-of-all-worlds/
In her article "Federation is the Worst of all Worlds", Sarah goes over how instances can selectively censor content between instances (a design flaw which some appear to have turned into a misfeature), and how users don't really have privacy from admins.

The article itself was written in 2018. All of these points are valid in 2024, in fact far more so. It is not really appropriate for me to discuss either of these points without giving her work a nod.

As far as I know, inter-instance censorship was never intended to be some sort of "moderation feature". It was simply a design flaw of how the system was fundamentally designed.

Quite a few content curation ideas have also gone in that direction (and leaning on it more and more beyond breaking point), even though it appears to actually be *harmful* to the fediverse as a whole.

A few people also appear to have a wild misunderstanding that the fediverse ought to be a "holiday resort" where you "escape" from another social network (but otherwise continue to use it for "real serious things"), and never see anything "upsetting" (broadly construed). There are also ten user instances and a couple of random companies who appear to think they run the place, and want to tell people how to moderate in their very particular styles.

https://fieldnotes.resistant.tech/federation-is-the-worst-of-all-worlds/ Security researcher Sarah Jaime Lewis long predicted the flaws of the fediverse.