Olives @olives@qoto.org

What's the new one. Oh, "think of the children" guy upset that tech companies, like the rest of us, didn't move so smoothly during the pandemic, and were impacted somewhat? by restrictions to help prevent the virus from spreading.

Blames them entirely for not having perfect moderation and management. I think, at this point, they're just looking for excuses to try to cast them as the bad guys.

https://nichegamer.com/dlsite-forced-to-block-german-users/
This German #WarOnPorn nonsense is just getting embarrassing at this point. Won't they just fire Tobias Schmid already? This wacky extremist is making the conservatives in the anglosphere look progressive.

Firstly, even if online porn "might" be problematic to someone out there, it would still not be anywhere remotely near proportionate to engage in censorship, or privacy intrusive measures.

Secondly, the typical recommendation is sex education, not censorship (which is harmful in it's own ways).

Thirdly, the science isn't really showing this:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2015.1023427
https://psyarxiv.com/ehqgv/
Two studies showing porn is not associated with sexism. One carried out by German scientists, another carried out by Canadians.

https://qoto.org/@olives/110462274531891870
American scientists carried out a meta analysis of 59 studies. They found porn isn't associated with crime. A meta analysis is a study where someone studies studies.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31432547/
Nor does it seem this is the case among adolescents (the meta analysis also points to that). Here, the minors who used more porn engaged in less sexual aggression.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault
https://qoto.org/@olives/110400288665794817
There are even studies (across the United States, Japan, Finland, and more) showing that porn is associated with less crime, even among criminals.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31042055/
While an older Dutch study showed there might be worse levels of "sexual satisfaction" among adolescents using porn, a Croatian lab failed to replicate that.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563222001637
This is a meta analysis on sexualization in video games. It finds that studies tend to pick cutoffs where it's difficult to distinguish signal from noise. This increases the number of false positives.

There are also results which contradict the theory of sexualization being harmful. In the end, it fails to find a link between this and sexism, and this and mental well-being.

I'm usually sceptical of apparent links, as the "scientific pile on effect" (as one described it) drives people to go looking for "links" between porn and "something bad" however tenuous it might be, or methodologically flawed an approach it might be (and later, that something is debunked).

If it was Australia, I might add it doesn't matter if they're "child-like" or "fictional children" (this is far, far more likely to hit someone good than someone bad who don't need it). If it was actual real children, I would oppose that on ethical grounds (though, I still wouldn't want to burn down the Internet, because of unwanted bad actors). This is covered above but it is also kind of common internet sense.

Fourthly, "age verification" can also be harmful (and often unconstitutional). Scammers have been known to launch scams using this theme. It is also a violation of someone's right to freedom of expression, privacy, and puts them at a security risk.

They're even trying to justify this extreme law by... Pointing to how someone might send mean messages to a politician.

https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-government-proposals-would-allow-it-to-mass-surveil-all-users-of-an-internet-service-within-specific-timeframe

"The UK government has presented draft amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) – otherwise known as “Snoopers Charter,” a highly controversial piece of legislation allowing for wide-scale spying by intelligence agencies.

The plan now is to specify that the authorities have the right to carry out mass surveillance of an internet service within a specific timeframe – and do so “dragnet-style,” by spying on all users of that service during a given time."

"One of the things that came out of the plan being publicly presented by the UK’s king last Tuesday was that there was an idea to introduce the power of veto if and when privately-owned (mostly US) social platforms decide to usher in some “privacy-friendly” features.

Some reports mention that one of the proposed provisions would mean that should globally operating tech/social media companies decide to increase security of their products (the implication here is not difficult to make – it highly likely refers to encryption), they would have to have the UK spying community’s “blessing” first."

#privacy

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/14/uk-government-leaders-say-investigatory-powers-act-isnt-awful-enough-announce-plans-to-make-it-worse/

"The UK government thinks the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act is due for an overhaul. But it has plenty of opposition. Some of the proposed amendments actually appear to be illegal. And at least one major tech company has threatened to exit the market if the proposed amendments become law."

"According to this fact sheet, service providers will now be required to retain certain internet browsing records created by their users."

"The proposed changes would also expand the definition of bulk personal datasets (BPDs) to cover data collected by third parties, like data brokers. And, while this isn’t technically a “new” power it is definitely an expansion of the government’s existing power"

"The bill would also increase the duration of a BPD warrant from six to twelve months"

"“Greater operational agility” is just a fancy way of saying “make things easier.” When you start altering the rules to increase law enforcement efficiency, you tend to turn protected rights into privileges that only need to be respected when they’re not inconveniencing law enforcement.

None of this is law. Yet. But it’s clear those heading the government firmly believe this is the right way to go."

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/13/new-israeli-law-makes-consuming-terrorist-content-a-criminal-offense/

"And now we learn that Israel’s government has taken the next step in amending its counterterrorism laws to make the consumption of “terrorist” content a criminal offense, punishable with jail time."

"Make no mistake, this is the institution of thought crime. Read those two paragraphs one more time and realize just how much the criminalization of consumption of materials relies on the judgement and interpretation of those enforcing it. What is systematic in terms of this law? What is a publication? What constitutes a “terrorist organization,” not in the case of Hamas and ISIL, but in that ominous bit at the end of the second paragraph, where more organizations can — and will — be added to this list?

And most importantly, how in the world is the Israeli government going to determine “circumstances that indicate identification with the terrorist organization?”"

"This has all the hallmarks of America’s overreaction to the 9/11 attacks. We still haven’t unwound, not even close, all of the harm that was done in the aftermath of those attacks, all in the name of safety. We are still at a net-negative value in terms of our civil liberties due to that overreaction."

https://qoto.org/@olives/111083302650803082 Porn is not linked to bad things.
https://qoto.org/@olives/111191543236620885 Multiple thousand word commentary on conflations.

Two useful ones for #Altersverifikation as there are bad faith actors who like to conflate porn / fiction / fantasy with abuse (when it's really freedom of expression).

Training a model on personal social media posts (text) might lead to privacy leaks, so I'd suggest against this practice (hopefully, it's not a thing, or too much of a thing).

https://qoto.org/@olives/111083302650803082 A short anti-porn starter kit. Convenient as other threads can be heavier. This was actually intended to deal with one specific situation. Could say that about the other one too, honestly.

https://qoto.org/@olives/111191543236620885 Dive into why muddling abuse with fiction (mentions the bad actors who deliberately try to muddy the waters by conflating the two) is bad. Thousands of words.

I think that Palestine has always been an example of a spot where hate speech standards tend to get really fuzzy.

It's just far more apparent now with the current conflict.

Since Germany is accused of blocking porn sites, seemingly because of a crazy rogue official, I think it is a good idea to always contact lawmakers to oppose that (and any other censorship).

Maybe, it has something to do with that really weird obscure bureaucrat who was abusing his power.

Apparently, Germany's "age verification" law is not compatible with E.U. Law and the European Commission told them off about it.

That would be an actually good idea, though who knows where that'll go with this chat control garbage.

Important one to remember. #chatcontrol

It sounds like you should contact lawmakers in the E.U. Parliament and tell them to oppose such authoritarianism. #chatcontrol

If true, it is extremely problematic (and harmful) for "age verification" to be a condition of accessing a porn platform.

That is a threat to freedom of expression and privacy. Scammers have been known to impersonate "age verification" providers.

#chatcontrol

https://qoto.org/@olives/111407938871651520 Covered a similar thing here.

https://www.wndu.com/2023/11/13/indiana-senator-files-bill-require-age-verification-porn-sites/
This is bad for privacy, freedom of expression, and security. It is also an undue burden for many websites and users.

It is also a very obvious violation of the First Amendment. Anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment, as is the ability to access that speech.

It also would not deter someone from doing this, and attempted enforcement would only be harmful to everyone involved.

Their worries also appear to be scientifically baseless (https://qoto.org/@olives/111083302650803082). Even if they were not, it would still be incredibly disproportionate.

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1211949718/the-kinsey-institute-faces-possible-separation-from-indiana-university
The State of Indiana also appears to be defunding sex sciences.

I strongly recommend contacting lawmakers to oppose this piece of legislation. #privacy

Thierry all full of himself (and stirring up trouble) is a good example of why you don't give power to the government. They're not your friends.