Olives @olives@qoto.org

The proposed treaty would also be bad for privacy, but since that aspect of it tends to get more attention, I'm focusing more on the speech portions.

Make no mistake though, this is also troublesome, and you should oppose that too.

As someone suggested, if you don't like this proposal, then you can "Contact your political representatives. Tell them what is happening and ask them to demand the country maintains a full commitment to defending human rights."

Since there is discourse on the #UNCybercrimeTreaty proposal:

From what I remember of a draft, it wasn't proportionate at all. It assumed it was "fine" to encourage someone to take content down "quickly", as if this is a trivial thing to accomplish (and can be done so uniformly and universally, ouch).

However, this practically means violating the rights of a lot of people. That is no triviality. It reminded me of one of those one-dimensional tech policy takes where someone expects someone to wave a wand to fix the world or "why hasn't someone done this simple thing" (the "simple" thing being problematic, and probably not effective).

There's already a problem with corners of people's rights being cut in the world, and not getting much (if anything) out of it. Why should this failed approach be enshrined here? That is really the problem.

Someone has pulled a "wish list" out of thin air containing "simple" "asks". This wish list in practice would be a "license" to violate people's rights and inflict all kinds of harms, and it's not any one point or another which is bad, the entire approach to writing the thing is rotten to the core.

Some parts opt for awful censorious language by default, and seems to leave it up to individual States to optionally operate in a human rights compliant way. That turns someone's fundamental rights upside-down where someone has to beg, grovel, and work hard to convince others that they should have basic rights like anyone else. Or to not be persecuted (prosecuted). This is all easy for someone who doesn't have to worry about that to say, but not for someone who actually has to navigate that.

For these things, there are also already other treaties which cover crime. Maybe, they could be improved to, say, protect someone's rights better, but it's not as if this treaty is a shining beacon of liberty. #FreeSpeech

Also, consider that rather than just having the incompetence of one company, now you have the combined incompetence (and some of it might be more deliberately bad) of a company *and* them.

On occasion, they might engage in namedropping. If they can get a sucker to do what they want, they'll use their name (it doesn't seem they do so with their consent), *even if no one else agrees with them*.

One of the disturbing things about outfits like this is that they confidently stroll in, as if they know what they're doing, and then, judging from companies who have worked with them, they just come up with absolute garbage.

I wasn't planning on my first take today being something spicy but I'll go with it.

We call on #MasterCard to cease your "partnership" with the "IWF". We have watched for the past three years as you have made complete fools of yourself, utterly failing to curb abuse on the Internet, all while playing with all kinds of ridiculous "ideas" which only end up suppressing legitimate content. Enough already. Leave the policing to the police. #FreeSpeech

For one example of this, someone thinks a financial service is being puritanical but then they might have been hit by an algorithm because their fictional cartoon work contains the word "slave" in the title.

It's dumb. It's stupid. It's known to happen.

When trying to figure out why something has been censored, remember that the reason can sometimes be dumber than you think.

Since someone is curious, yes, someone has been sued for defamation before for misrepresenting some fictional sexual thing as if it is real.

On second thought, I'll add a tag to that one.

https://intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2024-ws-62-childrens-rights-and-ai-digital-textbooks
"President Yoon Suk-yeol said: "Textbooks … should now be phased out... Education should transition to individualized, tailored approaches." In short, #AI will be made to study the particular needs and talents of each student and present next learning goals tailored to those needs and talents."
Sounds suspicious.

Sometimes, I think it's the NIMBYs who tie up housing.

You would think it'd be simpler to just provide people with housing.

The United Kingdom. Where people go to prison just so they don't have to sleep on the streets.

It isn't someone's awkward use of the phrase "revenge porn". It is that there are these weird people who hate porn and they go out of their way to attack it.

I've even seen someone using "NCII" (non-consensual intimate imagery) in a tortured fashion to talk about NCII which doesn't have real people in it (which is a contradiction of what the term even means).

"By definition, pornography is consensual."

I think that what people who talk like this miss is that bad actors already like to use the word "abuse" in completely inappropriate situations where there is no abuse.

Put it simply, it doesn't matter to them if the actor consented, it is more whether the themes offend them, or maybe they just don't like porn.

https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-don-t-let-anyone-own-the-law
"Court after court has recognized that no one can own the text of the law. But the Pro Codes Act is a deceptive power grab that will help giant industry associations ration access to huge swaths of U.S. laws. Tell Congress not to fall for it."
#FreeSpeech #copyright

https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/1818965347342361018
"So if you click through to the press release, you'll see they did prostitution stings while Comic Con was happening and called it. “sex trafficking” operation"

"adult potential victims of sex trafficking"
Hmm... That is interesting language. I hope they're not using the terms interchangeably as that would confuse things. One seems murkier than that (although, they didn't have to do it like this to go after that one).

It's not clear it has anything to do with the event, they chose to run their operation at the same time as it, and across the city.