Olives @olives@qoto.org

@kkarhan @KelsonV @eff what

@kkarhan @KelsonV @eff If that's there, then that is even more surprising, as the government is pretty no nonsense about that.

I'm not advocating for anyone. It's just a surprise that they chug along without anything happening to them, if they're doing all of these things.

@KelsonV @kkarhan @eff Visibility is very complex on the fediverse.

@kkarhan @KelsonV @eff I haven't heard of it being "CSAM-laden".

It's strange that he can openly do what he does, especially as specifically creating it for targeting someone, and posting content, would make him liable. Risky.

@KelsonV @kkarhan @eff That is sort of the case, although they do it very rarely and not consistently (another EFF pet peeve).

@kkarhan @KelsonV @eff I think there is kind of a distinction with a T1 provider, it is a greater bottleneck.

It is frustrating how seemingly ineffectual they can be in fighting for free expression. They're a free speech group, but unless the government is passing a bill, they nap in a lot of cases.

Government authoritarianism is important to oppose (and I suppose you don't want core infra providers with itchy fingers), of course, but so much is of a more corporate nature.

When I say free expression, I don't typically mean Joshua's little site here, it's more basic things like sexual expression, art, and more.

https://protectthestack.org
When they do comment on that (sort of), it is primarily in the context of infra.

@kkarhan @KelsonV @eff I've definitely heard legends of them on the Internet.

It's said that it was created to mock and ridicule some guy with a mental disability. There are also allegations that one egged him on to commit a rape.

They're like the stuff of legends.

@KelsonV @kkarhan @eff He's upset that they don't think this ISP is the right bunch to be intervening here.

It involves a particular site, which I think started off as one to harass a particular person.

In fairness, trying to gauge levels of interest is a bit tricky. Lots of unknowns.

There is someone who is more interested in my No takes than Yes ones, which is rather curious, lol.

Maybe, I should become an anime reviewer, lol.

I can see why it *might* be uniquely offensive to someone.

The humor references sexual offenders specifically (and rather gratuitously), i.e. candy, rather than simply engaging in edgy scenarios.

But, then, the potential for offense isn't something that is particularly relevant to me here.

Also, this is a tip of the iceberg, because the anime really is joke after joke after joke.