Olives @olives@qoto.org

I see someone using Hamas propaganda as an argument against Telegram's anti-censorship stance. Of course someone would... Ugh.

https://www.iccl.ie/news/ombudsman-european-commissions-concealment-of-secret-expert-list-on-csam-regulation-constitutes-maladministration/

"In response to a request for documents pertaining to the decision-making behind the proposed CSAM regulation, the European Commission failed to disclose a list of companies who were consulted about the technical feasibility of detecting CSAM without undermining encryption. This list “clearly fell within the scope” of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties’ request.

The European Ombudsman has now held that the Commission’s failure to disclose the existence of this list constituted “maladministration”."

#chatcontrol

https://www.politico.eu/article/british-deputy-pm-throws-backing-behind-open-source-ai-downplays-risks/

"open source backers like Meta’s Yan LeCunn" Though, it's not really that open source.

I'm not surprised that "Closed system companies like OpenAI and Anthropic" would oppose "open sourcing" it. That would open them up to more competition. FB is different here, as they don't make money directly via offering up paid APIs.

A better argument could be made about algorithms which make decisions about people without their consent. The examples here are not that (and tend to be the most cliché and exaggerated ones).

Speaking as someone who is, and has been, depressed, I don't support censorship legislation in the name of "protecting depressed people" either (and I'm sure it won't work, it'll just censor people).

It's interesting how mentions (i.e. @ing) are much like saying the name of a supernatural being and that being being summoned.

Notifications (1)

It is I, Olives, who summoned me?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/04/plans-to-redefine-extremism-would-include-undermining-uk-values British fascists want to censor anyone who "undermines" their "values", it seems.

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/03/eu-tries-to-slip-in-new-powers-to-intercept-encrypted-web-traffic-without-anyone-noticing/ Another eidas take. I agree with Glynn here.

It's really embarrassing to see these "it's going to become sentient!" or "we're all going to die!" takes from a futurist site in regards to "AI".

It's really important to understand that these are bad faith actors who don't care about anyone's rights, proportionality, or reason.

This still applies. I haven't seen any signs that anything has changed, just more shrill language to pander to idiots.

"AI" is not going to be manufacturing Terminators...

"AI" is not magic.

A few older articles from The Register (which I think is actually a British tech outlet) were also ridiculing the idea of wanting to go after those "obscene" cartoons. So, maybe, the world is not that insane, lol. Anyway, that wasn't very relevant to what I was looking for.

https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/02/google_abandons_web_environment_integrity/

"Amid rising community concern, Google says it will no longer develop controversial technology that was said to fight fraud online though to critics looked more like DRM for websites.

Instead, the Chocolate Factory plans to work on a more limited version of the tech for Android WebViews, a version of its Chrome browser that can be embedded within Android apps."

I think it is dangerous to have groups of people who can't advocate for themselves (also it creates problems in communicating with friends / family). That makes it very easy for the government to dehumanize a group, to remove the rights of a group, then to pivot to attack the rights of other groups.

I forgot MySpace was owned by Murdoch. Interesting detail.

Notice how Facebook (and others) kept taking these authoritarian (and unconstitutional, remember the state pressure) steps to make someone in the government happy, and the problem didn't really go away, it just violated people's rights.

I think what is particularly concerning about this, is that when someone like this talks about "sex offenders", they're typically conflating any crime of a sexual nature with a "child abuser".

Except, someone who has committed such a crime still has rights.

It is also a violation of the First Amendment. Also, whatever he is doing there doesn't seem effective (and the article admits as such). It seems to be pure grandstanding.

I took a short trip through memory lane there as it's important to understand the historical context of some of these things here.