Olives @olives@qoto.org

I see someone is upset with Facebook for reversing their policy of censoring media orgs when they just so happen to name a dead victim somewhere.

Even if you suppose the policy is good in principle, this sounds like it might be an annoying one to handle in practice with so many ways media orgs might do things across the globe.

Unless I take a closer dive, I'm unlikely to put too much time into this, and I generally avoid naming names of bad orgs to avoid giving them attention.

I've done it when it was important to do so but I don't want it to be my immediate reaction to them.

I didn't hit a tag with this post as it's fairly short, even if it adds context. I might do so in the future, if there is sufficient content.

One of the most appalling ways the namedropping is presented in is by claiming that there is a "standard" way of doing things, even though it is horrible, opinionated, and rights violating.

To give an example, something like a bikini is not really NSFW but I'm seeing people marking it as if it is (and consequently having it be blurred).

I'm seeing people marking content as NSFW when it is clearly not.

It's not *really* funny but in a dark way maybe it is. More than that, being very serious about all kinds of censorship can be stressful and it lightens the mood.

Plus, there is a fair chunk which is here because it is relevant / interesting. There isn't a hard rule for this.

As I hinted last year, I don't really want to comment on each thing individually, unless it is pressing, instead I'd like to comment on a more general thing. Sometimes, I will comment on something very specific though to make very clear that it isn't acceptable to censor.

I'm not even digging for bad news as far as I could, lol.

Tired.

I considered using a calm analytical tone here, but I opted for a no-nonsense one as it really isn't the time for that.

If you paid close attention, you might have seen a slightly older version of this post ;)

I don't think it is necessary as I post about that regularly enough but I figured it might be better to post it anyway just in case.

I'd like to cover "Aylo's" / "PornHub's" shenanigans here further.

"Aylo" is notorious for speaking over other people for their own gain (and to try to cover their historic reputation). For instance, they "endorsed" "age verification" which hurt their competitors and is poor for user privacy, before changing their mind later and vigorously campaigning against it.

Still, for Aylo, invading user privacy and leaking sensitive information about the sexual interests of users is just a small price to pay. It's just another part of doing business to them. Of course, once they realized that users were using their sites less due to it, they suddenly decided to change course.

Now, they're giving credence to anti-obscenity org advocating against things like VPNs and for censorship, and crucially, namedropping them while doing so and trying to present them as the "leader of the industry". It is extremely disturbing and it is paramount that these shenanigans are shut down immediately without giving it a single modicum of legitimacy.

Update: https://qoto.org/@olives/112432593064021268 I figured I'd cover the new porn science post here too but it shouldn't really be necessary.

#ukpol #FreeSpeech

#Vermont sneaking their "#AADC" (like #KOSA, it tackles "harms" to "children" in vague ways which are likely to chill speech) into another #privacy bill is very concerning. #FirstAmendment #FreeSpeech

"Aylo" keep embarrassing themselves. One moment, they'll "support" "age verification" (to try to pander to someone), before turning around and campaigning against it (to be clear, campaigning against it is a good thing).

This story with the awful org is really just the newest episode in that saga.

The Japanese language is very context dependent.

I don't particularly like Biden but I think there would be fewer weird judicial shenanigans or other things under him. The other people are unpredictable.

https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/in-a-victory-for-free-speech-lawsuit-challenging-mail-digitization-in-jails-will-move-forward
"A #California Superior Court recently rejected an attempt to dispose of a lawsuit challenging San Mateo County’s policy of destroying and digitizing physical mail sent to people incarcerated in its jails."

"Since 2021, San Mateo County has prohibited friends, family, and other community members from sending physical mail to individuals incarcerated in its jails. Under the policy, all non-legal mail—including letters, pictures, birthday cards, and children’s drawings—must be sent to Smart Communications, a private surveillance company that scans copies of the correspondence, destroys the originals, and retains the digitized versions for at least seven years."
#FirstAmendment #FreeSpeech