Olives @olives@qoto.org

"Even the most vile among us have free speech."
"Defend it all costs."
I would say that about human rights more broadly too, and it's a good thing that it by principle applies to everyone.

While ECPAT is supposedly an international group, their circle of people who I've seen engage in policy discourse tend to be overwhelmingly British, and are even said to have links to the British Conservative Party which has veered into the far right. It is said that they have a religious background.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/01/police-break-up-largest-pornography-ring-in-taiwans-history
"according to local media" Something to be wary of is that there is an unreasonable bad faith "think of the children" group (ECPAT) which has a tendency of seeing a bill which doesn't have quite the language they like, but which would cover something, and they will ask for very explicitly specific language, otherwise they'll yell about how x is legal. I've seen quite a few cases of them doing that.

They also tend to promote prohibitionist and overly vague / broad language which is detrimental to human rights (which is why you occasionally get countries thumbing whatever crap they're spewing).

I'm not going to comment on this particular case, but if I don't cover that background, then that risks misinformation.

I would particularly put an emphasis on the cognitive improvements or delving into other cultures.

Avoiding an Anglo monoculture would be nice.

I'm not going to correct every article with a bad poorly researched take.

There are plenty of decent British people, of course, but there is a certain kind of British person who can be more troublesome.

Would it be possible to surface whether an instance is hosted in the U.K. on posts for users to spare themselves bizarre QAnon rhetoric? Is there a better way of dealing with this form of abuse?

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.