Olives @olives@qoto.org

While I've always been critical of Twitter's censoriousness (particularly in regards to art, but there are also other areas where the "free speech absolutist" has failed to live up to that motto), it appears they're now just not bothering to surface sexual content or other "sensitive" content now to followers (except in the following feed).

Presumably, this is to do with them not wanting to surface dead bodies, and you know, sexual expression tends to get lumped in with that as "sensitive content" (which is problematic in it's own right).

Another possibility is misinformation, which is problematic, because it would also take legitimate content down with it. I don't see what that has to do with sexual expression, other than "taking it as an opportunity to suppress 'offensive' content".

Why does Tim Cook even care what some disingenuous right wing rag says? Why does he pay such close attention to them? Is he a fascist?

I don't think it is acceptable for Apple to engage in censorship at the behest of known right wing rags (who are all too prone to present things they don't like in a particular way).

OAMA is pretty simple:

1) It forces Apple to not remove apps, though there are a few exceptions where they can.

2) It forces Apple to allow for "side-loading".

3) It forces Apple to allow alternate app stores.

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/12/new-york-pushing-yet-another-unconstitutional-social-media-age-verification-bill/

"The bills, the New York Child Data Protection Act and the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act (which doesn’t appear to have text live just yet), incredibly seem to be taking a page from equally censorial bills that have already been ruled unconstitutional in places like Arkansas and California. The SAFE bill is actually quite similar to a bill in Utah, which hasn’t been challenged yet, but I have to believe it will be soon, and it’s equally unconstitutional. Incredibly, the Data Protection Act itself cites the bill in Utah AND California’s Age Appropriate Design Code even though that bill has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge! Incredible."

"As with Utah’s bill, New York’s SAFE Act will require parental consent for anyone under age 18 to have a social media account, which means that if you’re an LGBTQ+ child and your parent disapproves of your identity, they can cut you off from your community support."

"It will also require “default chronological feeds” rather than algorithmically generated feeds, even though a recent study of chronological feeds found that they expose users to more misinformation than algorithmic feeds."

I'm more ambivalent on this one. If it's an option, then someone can just switch from one feed to another, if the default option is not serving them well. Though, if there's no evidence it does anything, it's questionable for the government to come in and micro product design.

"As for the Data Protection Act, it will require age verification (since it says sites have to treat those under 18 differently), and, as we’ve seen with the rulings in California and Arkansas (not to mention multiple past Supreme Court rulings), that’s just blatantly unconstitutional as it ends up limiting adult access to content as well."

Yes, that is troublesome. If they're going to do some sort of privacy law, then it might be better to go down the avenue of pushing higher privacy standards for everyone, rather than carving out special ones for minors (which first requires determining who is a minor).

https://reason.com/2023/10/12/california-gov-gavin-newsom-nixes-psychedelic-decriminalization-and-cannabis-cafes/ It's certainly a questionable decision on his part.

"Apple said it removed Chai from the app store for repeated violations of guidelines related to objectionable content and user-generated content."

While I'm not that fond of the Open App Markets Act, as it gets the government involved in regulating these companies (though, it is permissible in this case), Apple is only adding to the case that they cannot be trusted, and need to be forced to stop interfering in commerce.

https://reclaimthenet.org/adobe-releases-tool-developed-with-the-bbc-to-combat-misinformation-in-images "Produced by Jane Smith" This is a clear threat to the creator's safety, particularly on the Internet.

As Meredith has been a good privacy warrior before the government lately, I've avoided being that critical of Signal, but as some have pointed out, it does have it's flaws.

https://reclaimthenet.org/signal-introduces-message-editing What do you think of this? (I still dislike the phone number requirement and other problems with Signal).

"impact assessments" don't protect people's right to free expression. Not by a long shot. Can we stop pretending they might?

https://www.xbiz.com/news/277238/ohio-republicans-innocence-act-could-criminalize-online-nudes

Noting that this bill could easily be worse than I suggest here, I haven't looked at the *specific language* of it.

"A Republican lawmaker in Ohio introduced this week an age verification bill called the “Innocence Act,” which observers have pointed out that, as submitted, could criminalize the posting of any nude image online without verifying age as a felony."

This means verifying the age of the viewer. Sounds unconstitutional to me. Very unconstitutional. It's a pretty clear cut nonsense harassment bill.

"Demetriou wrote he believes all online pornography “is a threat to Ohio children,” claiming that unspecified studies “have shown that pornography is a pathway to mental health issues for children and can be a precursor to sexual aggression."

"unspecified" In other words, this Republican has no actual evidence, and we should assume by default that he is talking nonsense (very safe assumption).

Also, evidence seems to suggest that religious conservatism is far more likely to be a "pathway to mental health issues". Perhaps, we should protect minors from these kinds of environments? Or perhaps, we should admit this idea is a load of garbage?

Also, even among those who think there "might" be an "association", it is suggested that it is far more likely that it is that someone turns to porn, because they have some problem, not because the porn has created that very problem.

"precursor" to "sexual aggression".

Also, it's interesting how this particular language doesn't actually suggest that it causes it. It only suggests that it might come before. This is something you could use to debunk this idea of porn being bad but it would never be able to establish that it *is*.

This is something which something like half of the population does. If it led to sexual aggression, we would see a lot more sexual crimes. We don't. Even if you suppose that someone has some problem, it's extremely unlikely that *this* is the problem. It's a very lazy scapegoat for social issues.

In any case, this particular one has been thoroughly debunked.

"In another sentence, Demetriou’s official statement explains that “if a minor attempts to access sexually explicit material by falsifying their identity would be charged with a fourth-degree misdemeanor.”"

This creep wants to lock up minors for displaying a normal adolescent curiosity in sex.

"Other stipulations of Demetriou’s Innocence Act address the posting of sexually-themed deepfakes, which the legislator is proposing to be charged as a third-degree felony."

Just because the bill might have one maybe okay provision (if it simply means like non-consensual deepfakes of someone, language kind of matters) doesn't mean this is a "good" bill (it's still awful, awful).

https://reclaimthenet.org/ylva-johansson-dismisses-criticial-surveillance-chat Another take on Ylva's antics.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/10/mastercard-should-stop-selling-our-data

"That's why EFF has joined a campaign, led by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG), to call on Mastercard to limit its data collection and stop selling cardholder information."

"Why make this ask of Mastercard? As U.S. PIRG explains in its report accompanying the campaign, the company’s position as a global payments technology company affords it "access to enormous amounts of information derived from the financial lives of millions, and its monetization strategies tell a broader story of the data economy that’s gone too far.""

"Knowing where you shop, just by itself, can reveal a lot about who you are. Mastercard takes this a step further, as U.S. PIRG reported, by analyzing the amount and frequency of transactions, plus the location, date, and time to create categories of cardholders and make inferences about what type of shopper you may be. In some cases, this means predicting who’s a “big spender” or which cardholders Mastercard thinks will be “high-value”—predictions used to target certain people and encourage them to spend more money."

https://reason.com/2023/10/10/the-right-to-give/

"In July, Phillip Picone, a Houston activist, stood before a jury of his peers, charged with the heinous crime of feeding the needy."

"Picone is one of several activists affiliated with Food Not Bombs (FNB), a volunteer group with chapters worldwide. Houston police have repeatedly cited FNB activists for distributing free food outside the city's downtown public library, based on a 2012 city ordinance restricting charitable food services. By the time Picone appeared in Houston Municipal Court, FNB members had received 45 tickets at $254 each, for a total of $11,430 in fines."

https://reclaimthenet.org/iran-rolls-out-invasive-facial-recognition-tech-in-colleges

"The tightening grip of surveillance and political suppression in Iranian universities has intensified, as the Islamic Republic seeks to muzzle the academic community. With facial biometric verification becoming a staple for accessing even the most basic of services, the cloak of unease drapes heavily upon the student body.

Student groups from across the nation have raised concerns about these invasive measures. A striking video from the United Students Telegram, released October 1, captures school officials from Shiraz University mandating students to provide facial scans to access food from self-service amenities."

https://reason.com/2023/10/09/federal-prison-censors-reason-issue-about-how-federal-prison-employed-serial-rapists/

"A federal prison blocked an incarcerated Reason subscriber from receiving one of our recent issues. It's the one whose cover story showed how the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) allowed a cadre of guards to sexually assault female inmates with impunity—and allowed them to escape legal consequences after they confessed."

"The rejection notice from FMC Devens says the issue "is being rejected due to the nature of its content. The magainze [sic] contains an article about Bureau of Prisons staff at FCC Coleman including the names of Correctional Officers and victims. Such material jeopardizes the good order and security of the institution.""

"This is far from the first time Reason has had a run-in with prison censors. Issues of Reason have been impounded by Florida and Arizona prison officials. The latter found a on the deplorable conditions inside the Washington, D.C., jail "detrimental to the safe, secure, and orderly operation of the institution.""

What's next? CSI? Murder mystery novels?

It's a nonsense argument.

Also, this is exactly the sort of argument someone might use to clobber transparency, which would lead to misdeeds, unethical practices, and rights violations not being covered.

Society shouldn't be architected to the convenience of a cop above all else.

We really shouldn't let these people get away with this.