Olives @olives@qoto.org

I see an instance with weirdly specific standards (and rhetoric lifted from a controversial psychologist from decades ago who thought being trans was a fetish) which just so happens to be run by a British man.

It's been a fairly busy week so I can't offer much in the way of improvements to the porn info post.

In light of the inquiry in NSW, Australia, I might post that porn info post again but I'll wait until Australian hours to do so.

I might see if I can improve on the preamble but that part isn't a high priority.

One thing which I like about this post of mine (which is a work in progress) is how the points fit together into a whole.

I'm surprised people can look at the 2022 U.S. Elections and ignore what happened there.

Sometimes, the more someone tries to "show someone", the more that they end up undermining whatever it is that they're trying to do.

Focusing on public figures is also probably a distraction. It didn't do anything for abortion, for instance. In fact, it might even become culture war material.

Another thought. People like this think that they can go around censoring media of celebrities to "punish" them.

What might inevitably come from that though is fan backlash where fans cling even harder to "contrary theories" (or otherwise undermine whatever they're trying to do).

Also, I wonder if putting such a big emphasis on this guy doesn't just do the opposite of what they want by turning an otherwise non-notable figure into a bigger story. It is this that might make him more famous.

I just find it weird. They talk as if this guy is a big shot but he is just a random guy who reads the news (and he hadn't even been doing the job for long). When you look at the news, it's a bunch of non-notable figures who don't do anything beyond conveying a story. Who is thinking much of the news guy?

From the sounds of it, it was probably some sort of sting operation.

When a random British news anchor gets busted for a crime, and all of a sudden, the media is going on about how he was a legend, and that he needs to be scrubbed out of existence to purge the embarrassment.

The British media is just weird.

The U.N. hosts a panel like this to "assess the risks", then it's just a bunch of people who are unlikely to say anything useful.

https://intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2024-dccos-age-assurance-%E2%80%93-necessity-opportunity-or-privacy-intrusion
Whatever the risks are with age assurance, I have serious doubts that the "Tony Blair Institute", a "think of the children" outfit known to be unreasonable, and the "Head of Public Policy at Snap" (a company which doesn't even run a social network) will be able to explore them.

Where are the digital rights groups?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hide-and-seek/201807/beyond-words-the-benefits-of-being-bilingual Here's a good article on some of the benefits of multilingualism.

I'm a big fan of this sort of functionality. Not every language has a Latin alphabet, and not everyone in the world speaks English.

This was about the "think of the children" nonsense.

https://nichegamer.com/paramount-plus-cuts-popular-spongebob-meme-for-uk-viewers/ A joke was censored from an episode of Spongebob for British viewers.