Olives @olives@qoto.org

@KSargent @josephcox https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00111287221115647 The vast majority of sexual abusers did not use porn for that purpose, it seems. And the same probably applies to most people who engage in porn.

I won't speak for this particular technology, but the bigger problem is that *censorship itself* can be harmful to a lot of people, compared to a theoretical (or even a small concrete) risk. It's also likely they could just substitute it for something else to commit their crimes. And if someone does commit a crime (and as you noted, that is a crime), they can be punished for it. Also, censorship is likely to be unenforceable, although many harms of it would remain.

@KydiaMusic It is like, really, the shock article people are here to lecture random people because they don't like their takes?

And while a large part of the article is fine, it goes too far into the offensive content side, rather than the ethics side.

And it is worth considering that this take here actually contradicts many of *their own* takes and seemingly because they don't like this particular technology. I'm trying to take a diplomatic tact here but I'm not impressed.

From the sounds of it, they have already had to tone down the article, and I wouldn't be surprised, if it was just axed.

At the end of the day though, it's really just someone's blog. There isn't really an editorial process to it. It's like four people covering lots of subjects. It might be useful for keeping up with current affairs but not for scientific analysis.

@KydiaMusic Yup, you are 100% right. They are a troublesome bunch.

In fact, quite a few years ago, she used to write "shock" articles where a guy who frequented an abuse advocacy site (by his own words) and posted his own info was treated like the ultimate victim after being harassed by vigilantes.

She didn't speak up about less odious people being harassed though, particularly when QAnon was more of a thing.

Or where a serial abuser would be spoken about by a colleague of hers as if responsibility couldn't be attributed to him, even though he himself said he did it quite deliberately, before deciding to cease doing so.

Consistently, and repeatedly, they have offered up these inexplicable and bizarre takes. And really, it is quite rich for them to argue with random people on the Internet.

@KydiaMusic https://qoto.org/@olives/112523689531028852 It is also largely false and it doesn't appear this article has paid any particular attention to quality, instead opting for anything which might serve to give it "support".

Also, David is a guy who rather than reporting apparent issues to the developers of LAION quietly, appears to have instead waited however long to publish a hit piece for prestige. You can tell because of how close together the two events (publishing / taking down the dataset) were in time. How long would it have taken to organize everything he said he did? But, perhaps, I'm wrong and he is a wizard.

@ilumium If only Telegram would encrypt their entire platform rather than continuing to be a worse Signal.

@jasonkoebler That might be because you started talking about something else (i.e. bestiality, lewd content), or used vague / broad language that has a thought crime vibe to it, rather than focusing on what someone did (i.e. making it look like someone) or maybe privacy. That would rub people the wrong way.

Even that term you use there might be hard for someone to understand.

The rest is gonna be a repost:

There are bits in your post which are more valid, and then, there are parts which veer into quoting cops justifying whatever it is they do and which enters the realm of QAnon.

For instance, looking at cases at trial is meaningless, as it is likely they prioritize abusers and the like. It is impossible to generalize that to the general population. It is also unconstitutional to try certain types of content, thereby making them exclusively appear at trial with someone who has committed some other crime.

One of the people who you cite ("Bryce") appears to have no expertise in the area and appears to be offering up his hot takes based on things he has heard could happen.

Additionally, we know there is clustering (David), that is that a community which engages in abuse will be about abuse (and if you sample that, you will get highly skewed data), and what they post might involve that. And a community which does not will not.

Also, not only do the claims of "risk" or "fear of committing a crime" come from a setting directed to "people seeking help", it comes from a dodgy save the children outfit known to make misrepresentations. This too is impossible to generalize to the general population.

Perhaps, you could talk to me before writing these takes? You can also dislike the technology without spreading this misinformation.

Also, reposting this from another post (it wasn't written for you):

Despite the scant / non-existent evidence for porn being such a bogeyman, it keeps getting cast as a scapegoat which is quite frustrating, so I am going to have to go over this... Again.

Even if online porn "might" be "problematic" to someone out there, it would not be anywhere remotely near proportionate to engage in censorship (or privacy intrusive measures, which among other things might pose a security risk), especially as it can be free expression to someone, and expression which someone might casually share as part of their more general interaction / engagement with others.

Sometimes, restrictions can lead to services becoming inaccessible entirely, rather than simply limiting them to people over a particular age.

A typical recommendation is sex education (perhaps, teach someone about respecting others boundaries?), not censorship (which is harmful in it's own ways). I don't mean criticizing someone for telling an offensive joke.

The science isn't really showing porn is this awful thing:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2015.1023427
https://psyarxiv.com/ehqgv/
Two studies showing porn is not associated with sexism. One carried out by German scientists, another carried out by Canadians.

https://qoto.org/@olives/110462274531891870
American scientists carried out a meta analysis of 59 studies. They found porn isn't associated with crime. A meta analysis is a study where someone studies studies.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31432547/
Nor does it necessarily seem this is the case among adolescents (the meta analysis also points to that). Here, the minors who used more porn engaged in less sexual aggression.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault
https://qoto.org/@olives/110400288665794817
There are even studies (across the United States, Japan, Finland, and more) showing that porn is associated with less crime, even among criminals.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31042055/
While an older Dutch study showed there might be worse levels of "sexual satisfaction" among adolescents using porn, a Croatian lab failed to replicate that.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563222001637
This is a meta analysis on sexualization in video games. It finds that studies tend to pick cut-offs where it's difficult to distinguish signal from noise. This increases the number of false positives.

There are also results which contradict the theory of sexualization being harmful. In the end, it fails to find a link between this and sexism, and this and mental well-being.

I'm also usually sceptical of apparent links, as the "scientific pile on effect" (as one described it) drives people to go looking for "links" between porn and "something bad" however tenuous it might be, or methodologically flawed an approach it might be (and later, that something is debunked, or the "link" is a phantom due to methodological limitations).

I could add it doesn't matter if they're "child-like" or "fictional children", (this is far, far more likely to hit someone good than someone bad who don't need it, and a bad actor could still do bad things)*. This necessarily excludes involvement of abuse or invasions of privacy. If it were actual real children, I'd oppose that on ethical grounds (though, I still wouldn't want to burn down the Internet / sites, because of unwanted bad actors). This is covered above but it is also kind of common internet sense.

While I'm not making a point about anything in particular, to inoculate you against potential problematic arguments, it's worth mentioning the basic precept that correlation does not imply causation.

Let's use ice cream as an example. Everyone loves ice cream, right? Well, I like ice cream. This also happens to be used as a classic example by others for this sort of thing.

Anyway, ice cream is correlated with crime. No one would say ice cream causes people to go out and commit crimes though. Just because there is a "correlation" doesn't mean it is meaningful. And that's not the only way in which correlation might not imply causation. For instance, warm weather is a far more compelling explanation for this phenomena. That might come in useful somewhere...

Here's a couple which were added for auspol:

https://reason.com/2015/07/23/despite-all-the-panic-millennial-teens-h/ U.S. data shows teens are having less sex with each other (in a world with more porn).

Misapprehensions about porn can be more about expressions of sexual orientations than porn. In fact, we've seen an Australian news outlet specifically singling out "anal sex" as a negative thing not that long ago, who would that disproportionately impact? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29702013/ Also, moralizing can be harmful (and ineffective).

Typically, responsibility is put on individuals to behave in a manner that is reasonable to them, instead of looking for a scapegoat whenever someone behaves in a manner which could be argued to be negative. This isn't to discount external factors (i.e. socioeconomic ones) entirely but there isn't always something sensible which can be done. People live their own lives.

We might also want to look at how alcohol is handled. We tend to look at this through the lens of personal responsibly, that someone is reasonable for consuming it responsibly, and not behaving inappropriately. Now, alcohol is not the same thing as porn, it is an actual substance, not some pixels on the screen. It further illustrates though how strange and unusual the idea of censorship here is.

Quite a few things which might get blamed on "the porn" are actually general mental health issues which could be dealt with more normally, and crucially, without conflating it with porn (which might even detract from dealing with someone's actual issues).

In fact, online censorship has increased in quite a few ways over the past few years and it doesn't appear to be any sort of panacea. It has, however, created a number of harms in it's own right, including even murder by practically forcing some sex workers to work with more dangerous clients. It also provides a space for abusive bigots to dwell in.

An addendum (from another post which might be useful to add useful context, we won't delve too deeply into this section):

An additional bit on why "porn censorship" (perhaps, even some themes) is bad.

Some points about censoring fictional content there (censorship is a bad idea):

It might fuel someone's persecution complex, especially in the context of *. The idea of a dangerous world where people are out to get them. Feeds anxiety, alienation. It's happened a fair bit. It doesn't seem to do anything positive.

Someone might be more inclined to see someone as an idiot or crazy (that's not wrong, lol). In any case, it poisons the well as someone is not seen to be credible or competent in these matters at all. Promoting distrust doesn't seem like a positive outcome.

It violates someone's free expression. People have these things called rights, that's important. This point comes from the original post, I'm aware I've covered this here more generally, still there may be value in reaffirming it.

Bad people don't need it. They could still do bad things. Good people are who'd suffer.

It violates the Constitution. Multiple constitutions.

Punishing someone because they resemble someone unpleasant isn't good. Also, due process still applies, in any case...

Can be a coping mechanism.

@monorailtimes @josephcox https://qoto.org/@olives/112523674746754390 A large part of it is also false.

@josephcox
There are bits in your post which are more valid, and then, there are parts which veer into quoting cops justifying whatever it is they do and which enters the realm of QAnon.

For instance, looking at cases at trial is meaningless, as it is likely they prioritize abusers and the like. It is impossible to generalize that to the general population. It is also unconstitutional to try certain types of content, thereby making them exclusively appear at trial with someone who has committed some other crime.

One of the people who you cite ("Bryce") appears to have no expertise in the area and appears to be offering up his hot takes based on things he has heard could happen.

Additionally, we know there is clustering (David), that is that a community which engages in abuse will be about abuse (and if you sample that, you will get highly skewed data), and what they post might involve that. And a community which does not will not.

Also, not only do the claims of "risk" or "fear of committing a crime" come from a setting directed to "people seeking help", it comes from a dodgy save the children outfit known to make misrepresentations. This too is impossible to generalize to the general population.

Perhaps, you could talk to me before writing these takes? You can also dislike the technology without spreading this misinformation.

Also, reposting this from another post (it wasn't written for you):

Despite the scant / non-existent evidence for porn being such a bogeyman, it keeps getting cast as a scapegoat which is quite frustrating, so I am going to have to go over this... Again.

Even if online porn "might" be "problematic" to someone out there, it would not be anywhere remotely near proportionate to engage in censorship (or privacy intrusive measures, which among other things might pose a security risk), especially as it can be free expression to someone, and expression which someone might casually share as part of their more general interaction / engagement with others.

Sometimes, restrictions can lead to services becoming inaccessible entirely, rather than simply limiting them to people over a particular age.

A typical recommendation is sex education (perhaps, teach someone about respecting others boundaries?), not censorship (which is harmful in it's own ways). I don't mean criticizing someone for telling an offensive joke.

The science isn't really showing porn is this awful thing:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2015.1023427
https://psyarxiv.com/ehqgv/
Two studies showing porn is not associated with sexism. One carried out by German scientists, another carried out by Canadians.

https://qoto.org/@olives/110462274531891870
American scientists carried out a meta analysis of 59 studies. They found porn isn't associated with crime. A meta analysis is a study where someone studies studies.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31432547/
Nor does it necessarily seem this is the case among adolescents (the meta analysis also points to that). Here, the minors who used more porn engaged in less sexual aggression.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault
https://qoto.org/@olives/110400288665794817
There are even studies (across the United States, Japan, Finland, and more) showing that porn is associated with less crime, even among criminals.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31042055/
While an older Dutch study showed there might be worse levels of "sexual satisfaction" among adolescents using porn, a Croatian lab failed to replicate that.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563222001637
This is a meta analysis on sexualization in video games. It finds that studies tend to pick cut-offs where it's difficult to distinguish signal from noise. This increases the number of false positives.

There are also results which contradict the theory of sexualization being harmful. In the end, it fails to find a link between this and sexism, and this and mental well-being.

I'm also usually sceptical of apparent links, as the "scientific pile on effect" (as one described it) drives people to go looking for "links" between porn and "something bad" however tenuous it might be, or methodologically flawed an approach it might be (and later, that something is debunked, or the "link" is a phantom due to methodological limitations).

I could add it doesn't matter if they're "child-like" or "fictional children", (this is far, far more likely to hit someone good than someone bad who don't need it, and a bad actor could still do bad things)*. This necessarily excludes involvement of abuse or invasions of privacy. If it were actual real children, I'd oppose that on ethical grounds (though, I still wouldn't want to burn down the Internet / sites, because of unwanted bad actors). This is covered above but it is also kind of common internet sense.

While I'm not making a point about anything in particular, to inoculate you against potential problematic arguments, it's worth mentioning the basic precept that correlation does not imply causation.

Let's use ice cream as an example. Everyone loves ice cream, right? Well, I like ice cream. This also happens to be used as a classic example by others for this sort of thing.

Anyway, ice cream is correlated with crime. No one would say ice cream causes people to go out and commit crimes though. Just because there is a "correlation" doesn't mean it is meaningful. And that's not the only way in which correlation might not imply causation. For instance, warm weather is a far more compelling explanation for this phenomena. That might come in useful somewhere...

Here's a couple which were added for auspol:

https://reason.com/2015/07/23/despite-all-the-panic-millennial-teens-h/ U.S. data shows teens are having less sex with each other (in a world with more porn).

Misapprehensions about porn can be more about expressions of sexual orientations than porn. In fact, we've seen an Australian news outlet specifically singling out "anal sex" as a negative thing not that long ago, who would that disproportionately impact? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29702013/ Also, moralizing can be harmful (and ineffective).

Typically, responsibility is put on individuals to behave in a manner that is reasonable to them, instead of looking for a scapegoat whenever someone behaves in a manner which could be argued to be negative. This isn't to discount external factors (i.e. socioeconomic ones) entirely but there isn't always something sensible which can be done. People live their own lives.

We might also want to look at how alcohol is handled. We tend to look at this through the lens of personal responsibly, that someone is reasonable for consuming it responsibly, and not behaving inappropriately. Now, alcohol is not the same thing as porn, it is an actual substance, not some pixels on the screen. It further illustrates though how strange and unusual the idea of censorship here is.

Quite a few things which might get blamed on "the porn" are actually general mental health issues which could be dealt with more normally, and crucially, without conflating it with porn (which might even detract from dealing with someone's actual issues).

In fact, online censorship has increased in quite a few ways over the past few years and it doesn't appear to be any sort of panacea. It has, however, created a number of harms in it's own right, including even murder by practically forcing some sex workers to work with more dangerous clients. It also provides a space for abusive bigots to dwell in.

An addendum (from another post which might be useful to add useful context, we won't delve too deeply into this section):

An additional bit on why "porn censorship" (perhaps, even some themes) is bad.

Some points about censoring fictional content there (censorship is a bad idea):

It might fuel someone's persecution complex, especially in the context of *. The idea of a dangerous world where people are out to get them. Feeds anxiety, alienation. It's happened a fair bit. It doesn't seem to do anything positive.

Someone might be more inclined to see someone as an idiot or crazy (that's not wrong, lol). In any case, it poisons the well as someone is not seen to be credible or competent in these matters at all. Promoting distrust doesn't seem like a positive outcome.

It violates someone's free expression. People have these things called rights, that's important. This point comes from the original post, I'm aware I've covered this here more generally, still there may be value in reaffirming it.

Bad people don't need it. They could still do bad things. Good people are who'd suffer.

It violates the Constitution. Multiple constitutions.

Punishing someone because they resemble someone unpleasant isn't good. Also, due process still applies, in any case...

Can be a coping mechanism.

@sneak @josephcox The article is fairly misleading, he stands accused of quite a few things not mentioned there. He didn't just generate a few random images and that was it.

@ddritter @josephcox It appears they omitted quite a few of the things he did in this particular article. There is also a possible distinction involving the training data.

https://qoto.org/@olives/112483833316074543 Unfortunately, the quoted guy (to be fair, his job is to try to cast the accused in the worst light possible) veers into QAnon like theories. He is also it seems not really being punished for that but for some other alleged crime.