Olives @olives@qoto.org

When these chat control advocates start talking about "nuance", this is when they're about to mix a bit of truth with misleading statements and omitted statements.

They'll throw around language like "I support what you want but..." and write things to nullify that point. #chatcontrol

Also, something to be aware of is that these kinds of people tend to mix in decontextualized numbers in with speculation and assertions existing ex nihilo.

That is they're likely made without reference to existing knowledge insofar as that knowledge is inconvenient to the point they're trying to push.

They construct a conceptual space devoid of that, and speculate towards whatever end results in the most control.

Improper over-generalizations made from unusual samples are probably also something which are not unlikely to make an appearance.

These are annoying and keep getting debunked in way or another.

#chatcontrol

https://www.aclu.org/documents/coalition-letter-to-leader-schumer-on-opposition-to-stop-csam-act Civil rights groups send another letter in opposition to the terrible EARN IT Act... And that other bad bill.

To give you an idea of the sort of quality you can expect from these lobbyists for control, one went on a rant about how someone who is being oppressed by their country can "just vote for someone else".

When all else fails, a think of the children lobbyist goes back to conflating apparent statistics of adults talking to minors with "abuse".

While this sounds bad on it's face, it gets worse when you consider the statistic comes from a "European group" (seemingly created in 2020 by an outside group out of thin air during an impasse on privacy legislation).

They appeared to be best buds with the usual suspects for no particular reason. Well, now we know why. This appears to be part of a trend of localwashing.

They don't bother digging far, or for any number which might contradict theirs. They craft surveys in such a manner that it would be easy to produce ambiguous easy to spin numbers, they draw crude correlations without thinking hard on them, their practices don't appear to improve over time, and they're in the gallery to support greater control.

At one point, they tried to promote a "prevention program".

They stated there was something like a 80% success rate. This was inaccurate. There were apparently thousands going in and a handful of people going out, they then surveyed those people about whether it was "helpful" (80%).

This was stated by they themselves... For anyone who bothered to click past the flashy number.
Crucially, they didn't seem to be too bothered to collect data from people currently undergoing it.

This is particularly problematic as some U.S. states have previously been found to be running impossible to complete programs (which just served as excuses to treat individuals in a more punitive manner, not as genuine therapeutic programs).

At this point, I reckon they're just coming up with random ass bills assuming that they will be pre-empted by federal law, however, it's pretty dangerous for them to do so, and ignorant.

I would suggest opposing California's other unconstitutional think of the children law, and writing to the governor, if need be.

When all else fails, think of the children lobbyist now goes back to conflating apparent statistics of adults talking to minors with "abuse".

If you keep digging, you will discover another one where a prominent figure is apparently married to a former British digital minister (same party as now).

"WeProtect" even made appearances in The Guardian (and other outlets) as if they were some "independent" group.

Very important.

Buy one org get twenty free.

"One, who is closely associated with a data broker" Glenn.

The think of the children lobbyists are really upset that Signal and pals exposed that they just had one guy from their org create twenty "orgs" with twenty websites to make supportive statements of, well, control.

Or that an org which sells scanning software created a separate org (staffed by one guy from the parent org) to try to shame companies into adopting their product.

Aside from that, they're upset that people noticed they're just using disturbing stories (or as I'd put it, constantly trying to stoke up a sense of "urgency") to try to block out any calm and rational discussion.

One appears to be conflating "Big Tech" with the Internet as a whole. However, it's pretty obvious that a company with ten employees, is distinctly different from Facebook which serves two billion users, and has many, many employees throughout the globe.

Though, simply because someone claims they're "reining in" "Big Tech" doesn't mean their arguments automatically have merit there either, because people who use such platforms also arguably have fundamental rights of their own.

If "Big Tech" is arguing in favor of fundamental rights, this is at worst a "Wow. The worst person you know has a great point" scenario (if you're not aware, that is an Internet meme).

Not to mention, that other than E2EE (which might include FB), any "regulation" is going to mainly hit smaller tech, rather than "Big Tech" who already do a lot of the things which lobbyists want them to do (even going way too far in a number of cases, something which advocates of control ever so conveniently ignore, and even work hard to try to spin as a "good thing").

End-to-end encryption exists for a number of reasons, and I cannot cover all of them in one post.

A very large one is as a response to the Snowden leaks, where we learnt that governments basically don't give a rat's ass about privacy, and have been secretly breaking established safeguards behind everyone's backs (every now and then, civil rights advocates discover they're *still* breaking safeguards).

In fact, that is also the primary reason that HTTPS has proliferated so widely across the web. Completely ignoring this historic context, as well as other arguments to it, is very disingenuous.

One, who is closely associated with a data broker, and a very small group of online conservative pseudo-intellectuals, and has voiced concerns about things including "trans rapists" (and has spent a fair bit of time trying to repair the reputation of the police), thinks that privacy advocates are "disingenuous".

Assertions like this might get a pat on the back from like-minded individuals. It doesn't really change the base facts.

The think of the children lobbyists are really upset that Signal and pals exposed that they just have one guy from their org create twenty "orgs" with twenty websites to make supportive statements.

"If you’re in North Carolina, you need to call the Governor’s office immediately and ask him to veto this dangerous and deeply unconstitutional age-verification provision. It was snuck into a separate bill, HB8, without debate."

https://twitter.com/mikestabile/status/1705730301312532904

"It’s the weekend. No one will answer. Leave a message letting him know you oppose the bill, as do major civil rights groups. It’s a Trojan Horse to censor the internet. Or use this form to write a message. "

https://governor.nc.gov/contact/contact-governor-cooper

#FreeSpeech