Olives @olives@qoto.org

He has a strong "I want to be taken seriously" vibe to him.

But, then, he starts making a bunch of factually untrue (or at best, misleading) incendiary statements.

Silliest take was a think of the children guy screaming about Signal being "Big Tech" (it's a non-profit) and how they don't care about the children because they only care about profit. It was an anti-E2EE take.

I'm sure that data brokers, some of whom are known for selling information on the location of victims to their own abusers, who aid the government in violating the Constitution, and who non-consensually amass data will be thrilled at the prospect of rebranding their business models.

It's interesting when a guy who is linked to a large data broker suddenly has a problem with forms of privacy, including E2EE, and markets himself as saving the children.

https://reason.com/2023/09/06/u-k-government-finally-admits-it-cant-scan-for-child-porn-without-violating-everybodys-privacy/

"Wired notes that the problematic "spy clause" actually remains in the legislation. The government is just promising not to enforce it right now. In reality, all the powers will remain intact."

Have you considered that the government is saying anything to get the bill passed?

It looks like there are also other ideas, such as functionality for blocking users, and keeping other users a certain distance away.

I also hadn't heard of VR in quite some time. You know someone is pushing legislation when they're doing that.

In the worst case, there is always an option of excluding kids from online experiences. Maybe, put a R18 label on the device.

I'd rather the government didn't get involved to micro-manage it though. That's kind of spooky.

Of course, it would be important to see how much of a problem there actually is, and whether a reduced functionality mode couldn't be offered for them (as well as the exclusion of adult environments).

These are just ideas off the top of my head.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/202208/what-kind-men-buy-sex-dolls
https://web.archive.org/web/20170420182546/https://sexpo.fi/2017/03/09/avoin-kirje-tullille-huoli-lasta-esittavista-seksinukeista-on-turha/ (They changed the layout of their website)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2023.2199727
To be clear, it's okay to "do nothing", than to do something (this time against "sex dolls") which only has a possibility of creating problems.

Wow. It's been quite some time since I've had to comment on this one. The last time I did was in early 2023.

A few of the arguments against are very dry, speculative, and try to depict people as generally cartoon characters (as opposed to a fairly mundane person buying a toy). That's usually a red flag.

Also, bad people would still do bad things. It wouldn't really move the needle, but it would undermine due process, would set a dangerous precedent, and would pit some people.

Plus, there was a foundation which looked to set standards via collaborations with manufacturers, without the State getting involved.