Olives @olives@qoto.org

Seeing tech companies coming up with more and more fanciful excuses to not use humans for moderation and to use an algorithm instead.

This time, it's "the algorithm will be more accurate than a human in the future" which is both irrelevant (and probably bullshit).

https://tuta.com/blog/boi-fincen-threatens-privacy
"In the US, a limited liability company (LLC) is a business structure that normally protects other assets of its owners for example if a credit of the business can not be paid back. However, for privacy reasons lots of individuals buying a house hid their real identity from the public database of home owners by doing the purchase via an LLC. This practice protected your identity from being disclosed in public records which are vacuumed up by data brokers. This private way of making purchases protected those in danger of stalkers, domestic violence, and other immediate physical threats. Unfortunately, the Corporate Transparency Act is threatening this important longstanding legal #privacy practice."

It's time to seal away the terrible monster that is censorship.

Censorship is stressful.

I'm personally not a fan of classification standards compelled by the government but sometimes I have to meet people where they are.

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/modernising-australias-national-classification-scheme-stage-2-reforms
Ever been irritated by petty Australian Government censorship[1]? Well, the Australian Government is running a consultation on that. You have a chance to have a say on the matter.

If there are other areas of censorship which you'd like addressed, you can tackle those as well. I am simply covering in this post what comes to mind for me. The two main ones being the particular brand of puritanism which the government has sometimes had, and the irrational fear of games containing "drugs and alcohol" (even going as far as banning these entirely at times). There was also a game which was censored which appeared to allow players to perform drone strikes on tanks, perhaps due to fears of this seeming too similar to the situation in Ukraine (the precise classification appeared to be "criminal instructions" or something to that effect).

While what is happening to the folks from Ukraine is most despicable, and war more generally is tragic, I don't think there is any justification for this sort of censorship. There should be a strong presumption against censoring fictional content in general.

For violence, animated violence should probably be rated a bit to somewhat lower than more realistic violence. It doesn't make a lot of sense to treat these the same (unless the rating is low enough that it doesn't matter).

For sexual content, I have a couple of recommendations here:

1) If it involves a fictional character who doesn't exist (i.e. #anime / manga), there shouldn't ever be a reason to issue a RC rating. At most, maybe a R18 rating. A lower degree of eroticism or nudity (not really porn) might be present in anime and I think any rating should avoid rating that highly. It doesn't matter what the fictional character looks like.

I feel that muddling reality and fiction here really diminishes the seriousness of things like abuse. There also isn't a scientific basis for that sort of censorship, [2] goes into that (and other related matters). Some sort of sex education (perhaps around respecting someone's boundaries) might be better than relying on crude censorship which does not appear to be effective (and has harmful drawbacks of it's own, including even a harmful "War on Drugs" type phenomena when taken to an extreme).

2) For content containing real human actors, as a rule of thumb, if the content is produced with the (obviously adult) actor's consent, it should be permitted. If there is to be any limitation, it should involve an objective standard of serious physical harm, rather than the remote possibility that someone might be offended by the content. You also have to be wary of the Board construing this far too broadly though by deciding that a very mundane activity might have a remote possibility of physical harm. They've done this in the past (as has the British one).

Neither of these two recommendations mean that every site has to carry every possible kind of content.

As a rule of thumb, you might want online content to be treated far more liberally than content to be broadcasted on TV. If you're not careful, they might try to impose stricter TV standards outside of that context, despite them being inappropriate. I don't think that is what people would expect. Online, in particular, tends to be more oriented around curating your own experience, than relying on a broad brush one-size-fits-all solution.

In regards to the government wanting higher classifications for "simulated gambling", I'd be wary of construing terms like simulated gambling very broadly and assuming any game which contains it is primarily focused on gambling (or contains things like loot boxes). As an example, classic Pokémon games had a building in one city which had gambling machines. These elements made up a tiny portion of the game and the vast majority of gameplay does not involve these.

1 https://refused-classification.com Many examples of petty censorship (even containing dramatic sounding excuses for what is essentially mundane everyday content).

2 https://qoto.org/@olives/111888946356326887

#auspol #FreeExpression

I see the ACLU is opposing bad anti porn laws.

It would be nice if #Kentucky would start following the Constitution and stop passing bills that they should know full well are harmful for no good reason.

Your occasional reminder that "AI" is not actually intelligent (that is why I put quotes around it). #AI

https://www.wired.com/story/house-section-702-vote/ Uh oh, that's not good. #privacy

Getting vague inspiration from what you see / hear doesn't make a fictional character real either o.O

https://reason.com/2024/04/12/democrats-tank-fisa-warrant-requirement/ I see Republicans and Democrats are taking turns to sink any possible reforms to Section 702, while pushing through an unchanged renewal.

https://reason.com/2024/04/11/states-keep-passing-unconstitutional-age-verification-laws-for-porn-sites/
"Last Friday, #Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear signed a controversial bill requiring #AgeVerification for individuals seeking to use pornography websites in the state. While the bill seeks to prevent minors from accessing explicit materials, the law will require a substantial invasion of adults' privacy."
This doesn't appear to be the only thing in there which is unconstitutional (and harmful), mind you. This isn't a single issue bill.

Multiple courts have ruled (in the past couple of years no less) that this is unconstitutional (#FirstAmendment). The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that this is unconstitutional. It is also terrible for #privacy (and by extension, #FreeExpression).

I see they've included pseudo-scientific anti porn language lifted from an extreme group of religious fundamentalists (led by Mormon fundamentalists).

https://qoto.org/@olives/112257875717066085
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/26318318221116354
The only problem is that these claims have no basis in science.

https://reason.com/2024/04/12/ron-desantis-signs-florida-bill-limiting-how-close-bystanders-can-get-to-police/
"Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law today that will prohibit bystanders from getting too close to police and other first responders.

The legislation, Senate Bill 184, makes it a second-degree misdemeanor to approach within 25 feet of a first responder after receiving a verbal warning to stay away. The law includes a requirement of intent to interfere, threaten, or harass the first responder who is in the course of his duties."

""These are highly subjective terms which we believe will have a chilling effect on journalists' and citizens' First Amendment rights to observe and record the activities of responders at work," Bobby Block, executive director of Florida's First Amendment Foundation, told the Orlando Sentinel."
#FirstAmendment

https://netzpolitik.org/2024/netzsperre-fuer-wissenschaft-groesste-deutsche-provider-blockieren-sci-hub/ German ISPs block SciHub on #copyright grounds. Could impede access to science.

Looks like the Section 702 extension is returning to the House floor. Did they make any privacy reforms though? Did they make it even worse (like last time)?