Olives @olives@qoto.org

Apparently, the "brand safety" cartel even shut down a progressive media outlet.

Some points about censoring fictional content there (censorship is a bad idea):

1) It might fuel someone's persecution complex. The idea of a dangerous world where people are out to get them. Feeds anxiety, alienation. It's happened a fair bit. It doesn't actually do anything positive.

2) Someone might see someone as an idiot or crazy (that's not wrong, lol). In any case, it poisons the well as someone is not seen to be credible or competent in these matters at all.

3) It violates someone's free expression. People have these things called rights, that's important.

4) Bad people don't need it. They can still do bad things. Good people are who'd suffer.

5) It violates the Constitution. Multiple constitutions.

6) Punishing someone because they resemble someone unpleasant isn't good. Also, due process still applies, in any case...

7) Can be a coping mechanism.

If you don't want a surveillance camera inside your toilet, that means you hate children.

Looks like Australia is shelving breaking E2EE for now.

I wasn't even going to comment on it but someone seemed so confident in these dodgy numbers, seeing something that isn't even really there. Anyway, if you're ever unfortunate enough to encounter these arguments, then you know their flaws, I guess.

"Have you ever committed a crime?" (Probably with some dodgy definition) type questions are not useful to determine if someone is *currently* committing a crime.

Plus, other inherent weaknesses you get with looking for simple correlations.

Also, again, it's a "mystery sample". We have no clue where it comes from. Also, involves a bad faith actor who is known to use loaded language and to twist terms.

Also, saying that a criminal is more likely to use a privacy tool than the average person doesn't say a whole lot about non-criminals who use them.

Also, one of these measures seems to be remarkably "once a criminal always a criminal", therefore probably significantly over-estimates the number of criminals.

While criminals probably follow the path of least resistance (i.e. they're not going to go out of their way to do things in a harder fashion for no particular reason), they're also extremely motivated and would find some way to do what they do...

His antics haven't gone unnoticed by me.

Remember https://reason.com/2015/07/23/despite-all-the-panic-millennial-teens-h/

Teens aren't having more sex with porn.

It's also almost certainly not a representative sample. In fact, there's no information at all on the sampling. No idea where it came from or how it was collected.

https://nichegamer.com/toilet-explodes-into-fiery-inferno-in-china/ Toilet catches fire.

I see the "age verification" language now (or that posted on social media), it doesn't seem to cover porn containing sites per se (although, maybe someone could twist it against them, i.e. like Germany seemed to). It is a... worrying one to have on principle, even if it is used in far fewer cases, as it is an inherently privacy intrusive measure (and might even practically prevent someone being able to access content...). In practice, it might wind up turning into de facto blocks in a lot of cases, like with Germany.

That said, I see how it might've made a tempting compromise... Ugh...

I suppose if a puritan shows up, there is this:

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. Especially, as it can be important free expression to someone.

Secondly, a 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 cut-offs 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).

I could 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'd oppose that on ethical grounds (though, I still wouldn't want to burn down the Internet / sites, because of unwanted bad actors). This is covered above but it is also kind of common internet sense.

#chatcontrol

Saying they're more likely to be "perverts" doesn't change this and isn't relevant.

Seeing a bad porn take (usually a "I hate porn!" take) and resisting debunking it.

There is also an argument that some portion are "older", but again, they may have done it decades ago. There is no "when".

Hmm... Someone brought up a scenario where someone deliberately humiliates someone "without sexual intent" to it.

First off, that isn't my opinion on this. It's a commentary on current events. Secondly, it's my understanding that it's a "discretion" sort of thing, so if someone is being clearly malicious, there is still an option to enhance that.