Olives @olives@qoto.org

I wouldn't even be mentioning him, if a journalist wasn't foolish enough to reference this guy (when it came to a take with a bit more decorum).

I really don't understand why anyone would listen to anything this weirdo has to say. He is beyond a joke.

Now, the conspiracy guy is referencing an American fundamentalist who used to work for a puritanical org with abstinence pledges and other strange things, and who reckons that God wants her to get rid of porn (surely, God has more important things to worry about?), who is trying to shut down porn sites.

She is accused of committing crimes in the process and of misleading people.

This sounds like a good way to put innocent people to death.

Taiwan schedules referendum over whether courts should be forced to enforce the death penalty within six months of handing down a verdict.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/30/us/missouri-prison-guards-othel-moore-death/index.html Meanwhile in prisons in Missouri.

I'm reading a take which boils down to "I'm upset that a company would hire a lawyer to fend off a frivolous lawsuit."

This sort of crud makes me wonder why anyone would want to listen to what he has to say. A lot of it is this sort of weird wink wink think of the immorality.

And he is like this conspiracy guy and so much garbage comes out of his mouth.

I'm not going to comment on a lot of what he says, these things just jumped out to me, the last one because it was as if he was trying to force in "rawr, immoral" about something in a context where it doesn't make sense.

I think fantasies around "bestiality" was also one of those things which was relatively common. Maybe, we shouldn't be surprised though, with how popular parts of the furry sub-culture are.

A point I left out is that he was also trying to suggest someone was more subhuman or evil because point on graph but it it just came off as a strange thing to focus on to me.

Someone is grasping at straws.

"someone who views child porn is also more likely to view bestiality, this is a reason why we should shutdown encryption" Paraphrasing.

That conspiratorial guy is... Ugh. At times, his arguments don't even make sense. What does that have to do with that? Hm?

Also, it's likely that if someone is committing a more serious crime, then maybe committing a less serious one (if it is a crime) isn't that much of a big deal to them, or that a space which doesn't moderate that is also unlikely to moderate the lesser thing (or it might have gotten through the same way for a bit).

It's not a conspiracy, and it doesn't have to mean anything meaningful. Maybe, it's even a coincidence. And either way, I don't see how it's relevant.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/09/you-really-do-have-some-expectation-privacy-public
"This is where mass surveillance comes in. While it is unreasonable to assume that everything you do in public will be kept private from prying eyes, there is a real expectation that when you travel throughout town over the course of a day—running errands, seeing a doctor, going to or from work, attending a protest—that the entirety of your movements is not being precisely tracked, stored by a single entity, and freely shared with the government."

"Historically, we have not expected the government to secretly catalogue and monitor all of our movements over time, even when we travel in public. Allowing the government to access cell site location information contravenes that expectation. The court stressed that these accumulated records reveal not only a person’s particular public movements, but also their “familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.”"
#privacy

When I wrote that post for Canada before, not that long ago, I was considering the possibility that nonsense like this might crop up and it did.

Curiously, the same conspiratorial guy from Australia's takes have come up in #Canada this time (although, through C3P). I don't know why anyone there listens to him...

Among other points debunking porn being spooky in my QTed post, there is:

"A 2020 U.S. study analysed 59 studies and failed to find a link between porn and sex crimes (Carr, 2020)(Ferguson & Hartley, 2020).""

...and...

"Dark / taboo fantasies are fairly common and aren't a bad sign (Lehmiller, 2019) (Lehmiller, 2022). As Diamond and Uchiyama (1999) and other pieces of science remind us, this sort of content is not associated with crime, even if the fictional character is like / is a child, or the content is violent."

...and...

"Efrati (2018) shows that moralizing about sex can make matters worse."

...and...

"A 2022 U.S. study looked into studies regarding whether sexualization in video games caused harm to players and found it was not associated with negative outcomes (Ferguson et al., 2022)."

...and "sex dolls"...

"Some argue they reduce child sexual abuse. Finnish therapists who work with sex offenders made such an argument back in 2017 (Sexpo, 2017). Whatever you think of that, there isn't any evidence they increase crime, and studies so far have not supported the possibility they might (Ludden, 2022). While it's not something I generally see people use, I don't see why they should be held to a more restrictive standard than with online porn. Even if there are former / current criminals who use them, there are already laws against the crimes they're committing, and intervening would likely impede reintegration."

When I looking more into how parole works, something which struck me was how algorithmic it seemed, and how it might end up keeping people locked up for superficial reasons. It's disturbing.

I see people raising concerns about the expansion of facial recognition in the U.K.

"with a sexual interest in children" is a new nebulous and undefined term which has surfaced over the past few years.

In a number of cases where it has been used, it has obscured rather than illuminated. It originates from a few forensic psychologists, and it has been used to profile criminals within groups of criminals. On occasion, it might be lazily invoked without really reckoning with how it is not for the general population.

Consequently, when it is used, it might be used as a slur or to dehumanize individuals by alluding to a criminal connection.

The "with" originates from person first language, a purportedly destigmatizing linguistic style where someone might be referred to as, say, "someone with a criminal history" rather than a "criminal". Here it is used primarily to perpetuate stigma thereby mooting it's purpose.

The way it is worded is also prone to misuse and tends to distract rather than add value to discourse. What is "interest"?

I strongly recommend against using it.

Other than that, there also appeared to be, well, unethical therapists, bad therapists who mistreat their clients, because they are criminals and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of scrutiny of that. Naturally, they have some excuses for it but these are dubious.