Olives @olives@qoto.org
Software Engineer. Psy / Tech / Sex Science Enthusiast. Controversial?
Free Expression. Human rights / Civil Liberties. Anime. Liberal.
Joined May 2023
https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-serves-on-nist The four freedoms would be nice with "#AI"
@glynmoody artificial "intelligence"
@Kostyatine @gerrymcgovern In the case of science, it doesn't even really have anything to do with the middleman.
Scientists produce the science. Scientists review each others work. The middleman provides a platform and takes a hefty cut for it. A lot of this science is also publicly funded, and I think that if something is publicly funded, then it's only fair for the public to have access to it.
As pointed out in this post to debunk porn being spooky (which taps into various scientific studies), kinkshaming is also harmful. Can we not point at people as if they're freaks? #AI #HumanRights
@ulidig @404mediaco While I agree with that, the article is also ridiculously sensationalistic about a fantasy which crops up a lot these days and where the sky doesn't fall.
@404mediaco Kinkshaming is wrong. Who really cares what someone does with a bot?
The theory as to why it is called "child abuse material" (as I've covered before, it's actually an Australian phrase) is that it is supposed to involve someone being abused.
If you apply it to everything, then that dilutes it (a tactic which a few far right extremists with an agenda use to confuse people). That is just kinkshaming. We have seen you reference an associate of a far right grifter before (that is where they get their nonsense from).
https://qoto.org/@olives/113204617130506428
Taboo fantasies are also fairly common, and the science does not point to engaging in a fantasy being bad (if there isn't a victim).
The privacy / security issue is concerning though.
@josephcox Kinkshaming is wrong, Joseph. Who really cares what someone does with a bot?
The theory as to why it is called "child abuse material" (as I've covered before, it's actually an Australian phrase) is that it is supposed to involve someone being abused.
If you apply it to everything, then that dilutes it (a tactic which a few far right extremists with an agenda use to confuse people). That is just kinkshaming. We have seen you reference an associate of a far right grifter before.
https://qoto.org/@olives/113204617130506428
Taboo fantasies are also fairly common, and the science does not point to engaging in a fantasy being bad (if there isn't a victim).
The privacy / security issue is concerning though.
@GrahamDowns @404mediaco One study put it at around about 20% of the population. Another put it at around 10%. I suppose at that point, the number doesn't really matter.
https://childfundalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Katsuhiko-Takeda-appointed-Executive-1.pdf
The Executive Director of "ChildFund Japan" is a banker from the U.K.
https://childfundalliance.org/members_information/childfund-japan/
"Since 1975, ChildFund Japan (formerly Christian Child Welfare Association – CCWA)"
Remember that it's the DMCA (which shouldn't have been passed) which makes it harder for someone to launch a competitor to YouTube.
While there were discussions in Parliament over whether they could hire and pay a single civil servant, the British government was more than happy to put millions or more towards controversial "think of the children" propaganda.
Curiously, after the U.K. Home Office changed parties, Marija's orgs changed their tone a bit, although it hasn't been that long.
Marija's apparently going to be speaking at an event soon so it is worth knowing what she is about.
Marija's "think of the children" org is a bit different from some of the others. It's a "think of the children" org which exists to fund "think of the children" nonsense.
I'm just looking into some U.K. related stuff and the amount of nonsense is quite phenomenal.
But, yeah, the BBFC really has nothing useful to say about anything, because they're an old school censor which does work for a world which *doesn't exist*.
They are also way in over their heads and are unlikely to come up with a remotely useful take.
The BBFC isn't even a "regulator" for anything these days, they were replaced by a new agency a long time ago.
I think that only an idiot would ask the BBFC to say anything about the Internet.
First off, they don't even deal in the Internet (and this is a good thing), they have hardly anything to do with it.
Secondly, anything they might say is probably going to be based on whatever they think might be decent to air on television in the 1980s. Maybe, not quite that, but they are going to be hideously out of touch.
Also, why would someone task a "think of the children" group to deal with something related to the Internet, they are just likely to say something exaggerated / misleading and to come up with a stupid idea.
There was another wave of 500s. Looks like one post got through it despite the 500.
Apparently, they are working on fixes for this instance.
Software Engineer. Psy / Tech / Sex Science Enthusiast. Controversial?
Free Expression. Human rights / Civil Liberties. Anime. Liberal.
Joined May 2023
