Olives @olives@qoto.org

Imagine someone writes a 500 page report about censorship around the world and it is all about legislation to do with incitement of violence and hate speech but nothing else (such as sex).

This group's methods are concerning. Cherry-picking individuals, tricking a vendor to say something, and cherry-picking "sad dolls".

https://qoto.org/@olives/112853953984247398
Since a far right group (it's Australian) appears to be discussing "sex dolls", I briefly cover some science for these here (though, that's not the main point of the post). As pointed out, there is no evidence that it leads to crime.

It remains annoying when a free speech outfit fails to call out the censorship of sex and instead spends their time, in great detail, talking about a hate speech law being over-broad (which, sure, might be problematic but come on).

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gamelead.punch.boxing.club.fighter
https://www.refused-classification.com/censorship-timelines/game-iarc/
Australia banned a boxing game "Boxing Club 3D". The advisory says it contains "sexual violence", although that appears inaccurate
(even if there was, it shouldn't be grounds for censorship with fictional characters).

According to a review, it's of poor quality, although that isn't relevant to this decision. #auspol #FreeSpeech

In the end, you still need medical science to show that a particular drug (cannabis is a popular cause these days) might not be so harmful, and activists to push against prohibitions for however many years.

This is almost certain to be an issue there as Asian countries usually take a strong stance against drugs.

Here's another way in which that "just send your critiques to the government" Taiwan idea fails:

Oh, hey, illegal drug user, thank you for writing in to criticize our policies. By the way, you are under arrest.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/08/federal-appeals-court-finds-geofence-warrants-are-categorically-unconstitutional
"In a major decision on Friday, the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that geofence warrants are “categorically prohibited by the #FourthAmendment.”"

"EFF applauds this decision because it is essential that every person feels like they can simply take their cell phone out into the world without the fear that they might end up a criminal suspect because their location data was swept up in open-ended digital dragnet."
#privacy

Taiwan is another country, which unlike the U.K., actually has a written constitution.

"Article 11
The people shall have freedom of speech, teaching, writing, and publication.

Article 12
The people shall have freedom of privacy of correspondence."

I've questioned their commitment to freedom of expression before though.

In light of all that, the end of the ad cartel is good to see.

Also noting that even an "unintentional" act which leads to these outcomes can be troublesome.

One of the tricks in a monopolist's box is to cast themselves as "legitimate" and their competitors as "illegitimate". They make the "standards". They create the boxes to check. They like "associations".

I've seen small to medium sized entrants to the market, who might operate on a more shoestring budget, who were basically wrecked by things like this.

Also, keep in mind that it's primarily the competitors of Big Tech who suffered from the ad cartel arrangement and were blocked from entering the market / were prevented from being able to effectively compete.

Someone who doesn't believe that Google Search is a monopoly thinking that the ad cartel doesn't have anti-trust issues doesn't surprise me.

Part of the U.S. Department of Commerce too acknowledges that someone can legally do whatever they want with "fictional children" although they use evasive language. They also no longer suggest it drives someone to go out and commit a crime.