Olives @olives@qoto.org

So, I've been seeing chatter, mainly from Americans / Germans about how Finland is some uniquely enlightened place about this issue, so I decided to look further. (I also partially decided to post this because a QAnon type conspiracist was bothering me and getting on my nerves and it *might* be related to this sort of thing.)

I'm reading a Finnish article (from a few years ago) about a child abuser and it is, uh, quite something? First off, he is in prison, which is not terribly surprising. Commit abuse. Go to prison. Kind of how things work.

As you might expect from a progressive take, there's a segment about how he was unloved as a child, and his parents never spoke to him. Also, he was bullied at school, and he had no friends. In fairness, that does sound like something that would contribute to problems, but while that is all fine and well to point out, I don't see what this writer wants to do about it.

Also, mentions how the only content seen to do with their sexuality, as this writer would put it, has to do with being killed or creepy Nazi stuff, which is very intimidating / alienating. This sounds a lot like "internet tough guy" type stuff (I've always been sceptical of "internet tough guy" virtue signalling behavior). This is kind of ironic btw, because as I'm about to describe, this article is *also* alienating.

There's a point where this writer incidentally conflates "fantasy" with "abuse", but for "good progressive reasons" like rehabilitating abusers. That is also problematic. Abusers are responsible for themselves and their own actions (it's not really inherent to it). Singing the tune of the poor abuser is far harder than just pointing out someone is very unlikely to be an abuser and it's not of much benefit to that many people. Also, any rational person would not want to be treated like that.

It also decreases the number of general mental health services which might otherwise be available to someone (and might also fuel someone's persecution complex which also doesn't help). To avoid falling into a potential stereotype, I'll point out there are many reasons why someone might need a mental health service which have nothing to do with "not abusing someone", though theoretically, that might have the incidental effect of there being less of that. A mental health framing is better for the general public than a justice type framing. One is paranoid and suspicious by it's very nature, the other less so.

There are vague guesses as to how many people might be abusers, based on criminals locked up in prison. First off, ignoring the fact that some prison statistics put the percentage of abusers among child porn photo criminals in the single digits, this is impossible to generalize to even like populations outside of prison (as some are going to be statistically more likely to be arrested, thereby skewing those statistics), or the general public.

Even among prisons, it could be that more serious criminals are sent to a particular penitentiary (or in an unethical American study, since retracted, they were threatened to confess to crimes they didn't commit, or be deemed "uncooperative" with the "therapist", and be sent to a rougher prison). I imagine this sort of number might make someone feel very smart, but it's actually worthless for all practical purposes (and probably only serves to make someone paranoid).

In fact, the article itself... points out that such forms of abuse are so rare, that there are few correctional facilities in Finland to deal with it. That should give a hint as to how "common" it really is... I won't deny that it happens but acting as if it is *everywhere* is nonsense.

Progressive takes aren't really exclusive to Finland though, and even in this one, the writer seems to casually throw in questionable assumptions. She should have avoided using an abuser as a highlight for this subject matter as it tends to lead towards someone regurgitating nonsense which almost certainly originate from someone's "tough on crime" posturing against abusers. The world doesn't revolve around abusers though, and that is why the article is problematic.

I suppose there has been more discourse lately about how these numbers are a nonsense, so maybe there might be less nonsense in the future? Or perhaps not.

My response to what Ylva wrote (1):

"In my home country a for-profit company selling privacy products has launched an expensive billboard campaign against my proposal with the company name and logo on full display and sent brochures to all MEPS. Yet no one asks: is that political campaigning or commercial advertising? Is there not a conflict of interest here?"

1) It's not only this particular company which is opposing it.

2) They're not micro-targeting individuals based on their religion or other sensitive attributes. That was one of the reasons why she came under fire, and leaving this out leaves out a great deal of context.

3) They're not using the resources of the State (i.e. taxpayer money), that has to be millions of euros on advertising, to try to push through a highly controversial (and somewhat misleading) proposal which undermines fundamental rights.

"If my proposal is not adopted, we face a complete ban of the detection of child sexual abuse when the temporary legislation that allows it expires next year."

This is not true (2), it could easily be extended. Also, this hasn't been quantified, and aren't the only means to discover abuse. It's been argued throughout this entire process that this proposal is simply not proportionate and violates fundamental rights.

"Providers will be obliged to prevent abuse on their systems. If – and only if – that prevention fails could they be obliged to detect it."

Practically speaking, the Commission is always going to argue it has failed on any provider large enough to really matter. Also, nebulous attempts to "prevent abuse" sounds like a recipe for other kinds of fundamental rights violations.

"Opponents of my proposal have focused on my gender, or my appearance."

Looking at comments on Twitter, I cannot find any comment which focuses on gender, or appearance. Comments appear to be more along the lines of her being corrupt, incompetent, or evil.

In any case, facing heat is an inevitable consequence of disingenuously trying to push a proposal which impinges on people's rights. Expecting them to just roll over and take it without any show of emotion is just ridiculous.

"No individual company or organisation will benefit."

Curiously, she leaves out that people are accusing Thorn (who has high level access to her which many do not) would make money from it, and the AI investor techbro who runs it would be able to sell "AI" as a "wonder solution" more broadly.

"Yet no-one asks if these are strange bedfellows, no-one assumes Apple is drafting EDRI’s speaking points."

It's not hard to assume someone is influencing Ylva's speaking points, when she repeats what someone said line by line, word by word, uncritically, even when it comes off as completely nonsensical or irrelevant. Even mindlessly dropping in the "let victims work as police officers" proposal at one point which never really made sense.

Also, I assume that Apple didn't found this organization, and is not the primary funder of it, which I can't say the same about when it comes to some of these shadow lobbying groups, like WeProtect (founded by and it seems funded by the foreign British Government), which one of her it seems deputies is sitting on the board of.

WeProtect tries to convey the impression of being a multi-stakeholder group involving industry and others, but when you actually look into it, it is really just a government lobbying shell org. The idea that people would just ignore this sketchy looking org at such an important time is a silly one.

EDRi is not exactly my favorite org. I think they put too much faith in the State, and it is precisely State power which leads to the undermining of all the things they'd hold dear, such as fundamental rights. Nonetheless, this is a very weak insinuation from a desperate official.

As always, there is a strong stench of emotional manipulation throughout this entire article, because that is really all Ylva has.

"a new poll"

A poll which was barely warmed up, and which I casually spent a bit of time completely eviscerating as pure nonsense by a pressure group (3).

"Like the 150 experts in a recent letter."

Unlike the letter with hundreds of PhDs though (4), I recall this one includes people who work for think of the children groups (among others). It is also objectively easier to say warm fuzzy words about vague government initiatives (while not thinking of the practical implications).

#chatcontrol

1 https://commissioners.ec.europa.eu/news/setting-record-straight-2023-10-15_en

2 https://qoto.org/@olives/111240892835205013

3 https://qoto.org/@olives/111232581893336051

4 https://edri.org/our-work/open-letter-hundreds-of-scientists-warn-against-eus-proposed-csa-regulation/

"If my proposal is not adopted, we face a complete ban of the detection of child sexual abuse when the temporary legislation that allows it expires next year."

Ylva keeps repeating this lie but repeating a lie doesn't make it true. The Parliament could easily extend this particular carve-out (although, there are those who think that such a carve-out is also problematic from a privacy perspective).

Still, from a political perspective, if she thinks she can get her authoritarian proposal passed, then it should be easy to get an extension for this passed. Ylva is the one who insists on only pushing her own proposal.

Also, the Commission (which includes Ylva) was presumably part of the process which led to the current temporary derogation.

Talking to a nonsense speaking internet tough guy who wants to censor art because nonsense QAnon arguments (it's not coherent in the slightest), it didn't take long for him to admit that he also wants to ban furry art too, because it contains "bestiality".

"The Kill Online Speech Act" Wow, that is a great alternate acronym for KOSA.

How nice of Electronic Frontiers Australia to have all that information there.

https://qoto.org/@olives/111193032675481781 More nonsense here.