Olives @olives@qoto.org
Software Engineer. Psy / Tech / Sex Science Enthusiast. Controversial?
Free Expression. Human rights / Civil Liberties. Anime. Liberal.
Joined May 2023
Speaking as someone who is, and has been, depressed, I don't support censorship legislation in the name of "protecting depressed people" either (and I'm sure it won't work, it'll just censor people).
@Anniiii@ferreo.dev @stefano @gyptazy@bsd.cafe I'm not here to address takes from people who clearly did not read what I said.
It's interesting how mentions (i.e. @ing) are much like saying the name of a supernatural being and that being being summoned.
Notifications (1)
It is I, Olives, who summoned me?
@stefano @gyptazy@bsd.cafe @Anniiii@ferreo.dev https://qoto.org/@olives/111083302650803082
https://qoto.org/@olives/111192296198968801
Child porn child porn or like fictional art? That isn't in itself problematic (if your rationale is that it's disturbing). Though, if it is like photography, that would be problematic.
If it is like a fictional cartoon, that is very common on the Internet for a high level of free expression.
https://qoto.org/@olives/111191543236620885
This one is more rant-y (as it refers to someone far, far more bad faith) but also goes into that. It is of a more legalistic focus though.
Also, speech laws are not typically set at the E.U. level.
@Mer__edith Worth pointing out that Australia's AG is from the current party.
The "safety" commissioner was appointed by a far more right wing and very conservative party (which lost the federal election in 2022). Her boss (who overruled her on "age verification") is the Communications Minister Michelle Rowland. She might be more amenable to privacy concerns.
Useful context to understand.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/04/plans-to-redefine-extremism-would-include-undermining-uk-values British fascists want to censor anyone who "undermines" their "values", it seems.
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/03/eu-tries-to-slip-in-new-powers-to-intercept-encrypted-web-traffic-without-anyone-noticing/ Another eidas take. I agree with Glynn here.
@freemo If you see Arnold Schwarzenegger walking towards you on a dark road, run, lol.
It's really embarrassing to see these "it's going to become sentient!" or "we're all going to die!" takes from a futurist site in regards to "AI".
It's really important to understand that these are bad faith actors who don't care about anyone's rights, proportionality, or reason.
This still applies. I haven't seen any signs that anything has changed, just more shrill language to pander to idiots.
While I generally don't dive into this, I saw a few bad faith remarks which are so outrageous that I feel compelled to respond. First off, when tal...
"AI" is not going to be manufacturing Terminators...
"AI" is not magic.
A few older articles from The Register (which I think is actually a British tech outlet) were also ridiculing the idea of wanting to go after those "obscene" cartoons. So, maybe, the world is not that insane, lol. Anyway, that wasn't very relevant to what I was looking for.
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/02/google_abandons_web_environment_integrity/
"Amid rising community concern, Google says it will no longer develop controversial technology that was said to fight fraud online though to critics looked more like DRM for websites.
Instead, the Chocolate Factory plans to work on a more limited version of the tech for Android WebViews, a version of its Chrome browser that can be embedded within Android apps."
I think it is dangerous to have groups of people who can't advocate for themselves (also it creates problems in communicating with friends / family). That makes it very easy for the government to dehumanize a group, to remove the rights of a group, then to pivot to attack the rights of other groups.
I forgot MySpace was owned by Murdoch. Interesting detail.
Notice how Facebook (and others) kept taking these authoritarian (and unconstitutional, remember the state pressure) steps to make someone in the government happy, and the problem didn't really go away, it just violated people's rights.
I think what is particularly concerning about this, is that when someone like this talks about "sex offenders", they're typically conflating any crime of a sexual nature with a "child abuser".
Except, someone who has committed such a crime still has rights.
It is also a violation of the First Amendment. Also, whatever he is doing there doesn't seem effective (and the article admits as such). It seems to be pure grandstanding.
I took a short trip through memory lane there as it's important to understand the historical context of some of these things here.
Software Engineer. Psy / Tech / Sex Science Enthusiast. Controversial?
Free Expression. Human rights / Civil Liberties. Anime. Liberal.
Joined May 2023
