Olives @olives@qoto.org

Since there is an inquiry in NSW about online porn which might be taking submissions, here are some porn science points (among other things) which might be worth considering. It largely debunks anti-porn talking points. #auspol

I would like to see Labour revisit Section 62.

Historically, the British Labour Party haven't been the most reliable bunch.

For instance, coming up with an obscenity law and insisting that the Human Rights Act would exclude artistic expression from it's scope, rather than explicitly writing something in.

https://edri.org/our-work/empowering-people-to-flourish-and-thrive-a-vision-for-our-digital-future/ Unless you already understand what they're about, this is hard to follow.

It's nice to see someone who sees things my way that it's just weird that this one guy who reads the news is somehow treated like a big shot.

Usually, with this sort of role, it might be one person doing it, it might be another, it doesn't make much of a difference.

Is anyone surprised that Google opted not to retire third party cookies?

I suspect a lot of it though is just low effort grifting to raise funds and the like. This sector has a tendency of doing that.

Your honour, you don't understand. It was *streaming*.

I can't see that excuse working.

For a weirder example of the explicitly specific language, there is the straightforward language of "distribution", but they might want someone to explicitly cover "streaming". This doesn't make a practical difference. It's pure pedantry. Someone is still transporting x bytes from machine a to machine b. That sounds like distribution.

It's not surprising coming from people who clearly don't understand the Internet. They probably view one as a parcel and the other as a window.

It's honestly disturbing that a few people with strange ideas (and from one particular country) can go around trying to peddle their censorship prescriptions.

Let's suppose it wasn't the U.K., let's suppose it was the same circumstances but involved Russia, or I dunno, Ireland. It still wouldn't be good.

By the way, you'd be surprised by where a Russian censor might show up on the Internet.

This sort of mentality can be troublesome though, as someone might focus on minor crimes, rather than say, improving social supports.

Curiously, I'm encountering the theory that having a lot of broken windows leads to more serious crimes while reading fictional novels. From what I remember, the evidence appeared to contradict that.

I'm not making a particular point about how to handle crime. I just found it interesting.

"Even the most vile among us have free speech."
"Defend it all costs."
I would say that about human rights more broadly too, and it's a good thing that it by principle applies to everyone.

While ECPAT is supposedly an international group, their circle of people who I've seen engage in policy discourse tend to be overwhelmingly British, and are even said to have links to the British Conservative Party which has veered into the far right. It is said that they have a religious background.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/01/police-break-up-largest-pornography-ring-in-taiwans-history
"according to local media" Something to be wary of is that there is an unreasonable bad faith "think of the children" group (ECPAT) which has a tendency of seeing a bill which doesn't have quite the language they like, but which would cover something, and they will ask for very explicitly specific language, otherwise they'll yell about how x is legal. I've seen quite a few cases of them doing that.

They also tend to promote prohibitionist and overly vague / broad language which is detrimental to human rights (which is why you occasionally get countries thumbing whatever crap they're spewing).

I'm not going to comment on this particular case, but if I don't cover that background, then that risks misinformation.

I would particularly put an emphasis on the cognitive improvements or delving into other cultures.

Avoiding an Anglo monoculture would be nice.

I'm not going to correct every article with a bad poorly researched take.

There are plenty of decent British people, of course, but there is a certain kind of British person who can be more troublesome.

Would it be possible to surface whether an instance is hosted in the U.K. on posts for users to spare themselves bizarre QAnon rhetoric? Is there a better way of dealing with this form of abuse?