Olives @olives@qoto.org

At least call him for what he really is, a "campaigner" with ties to the British Conservative Party. That said, even as a campaigner, he seems practically irrelevant.

https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/12/06/an-online-safety-expert-argues-that-end-to-end-encryption-endangers-children

I don't know whether this is a British tendency towards "bothsidesism" but platforming this random person is really beneath the dignity of the Economist. It also leaves out this person's background, and his ties to the British Conservative Party. He is not a neutral "campaigner".

It also tries to suggest he is some sort of "expert". Yet, it seems that anyone can become an "expert" simply by turning up one day and saying whatever nonsense that it is that the Tory Party agrees with. There seems to be no requirements (not even a want for some veneer of expertise) for it. He makes a number of assertions, and which are almost certainly false, if not certainly so.

Indeed, this person likes to act as an internet troll, to make delusional and nonsensical rants, and here, he makes a myriad of silly excuses for totalitarianism, using the "won't anyone please think of the children?" cliché, making bare-faced lies, and working hard to downplay the negative implications of his ideology.

He also assumes that every negative externality of his ideology don't exist. The only problem is that they do.

I have two minds on FB expanding end-to-end encryption:

1) The people who say there are more private messengers are right, and there is a lot of value in pursuing more private technologies.

2) Facebook adopting better standards on privacy means that many people will have a better standard of privacy.

One of the usual surveillance shills too. Nothing says empowerment like subordinating yourself to the State.

I see random people on mainstream social media arguing over what constitutes "true feminism", is someone truly a feminist, if they don't want to live in George Orwell's 1984 with a camera in every room?

If you don't want to put your arm into a wasp nest, that means you don't care about children. #chatcontrol

Talking about one thing, then talking about another thing, then talking about yet another thing, and topping it off with language / nonsense reasoning that would censor it all.

One possible pattern worth mentioning.

By the way, I've seen one of these suspicious astroturf groups trying to argue that a minor joining a group with other school mates is "abused" by another one randomly deciding to post a bit of porn.

Strange fixation with porn. It also muddies the water, as you know, who knows if someone isn't using a very "clever" "definition" of exploitation.

I see the persecution complex in action again.

By the way, Ylva was at the G7 the other day. She boasted about that, so I'm sure we already knew that. And again, to spread her totalitarian ideology. #chatcontrol

Also, if you think this is just a crazy fringe view among crazy people online, consider that Ylva put that claim (unsourced) into her surveillance proposal.

The E.U. (or part of the Commission) seems to quite literally be run by a QAnon-like nutcase who is obsessed with technological surveillance. #chatcontrol

The worst rebuttal I've seen (on the cursed thing that is mainstream social media) appears to be... Well, they're surely not committing these crimes online, which misses the point that this claim is absurd and ridiculous.

When it comes to claims, the first question is, is this claim plausible? In this case, anyone with a working brain can look at this and say no, it is not.

When you see a few of the people pushing for #chatcontrol and they make bizarre claims like "one in five kids have been raped" which would make QAnon blush.

I've been saying this for some time now but we really have to ridicule this sort of nonsense.

Happy Human Rights Day. #privacy

Apparently, it's Human Rights Day, so I guess you should give free expression, privacy, and those other good things your love today.

It's worth noting that one of the Australian data breaches included "records of treatments" (which were of great interest to criminals), just like #ehds.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/22/labor-mandatory-data-retention-laws-companies-hacks-cyber-security-strategy

Reinstating the "they're turning the frogs gay" guy doesn't strike me as the most important free expression issue to solve on Twitter.

I probably don't really need to explain this bit.

Both of these things are things where someone suspends well-established rights and principles in the hopes of fighting something bad.

Also, these measures only ever keep escalating, and no one questions whether they're particularly proportionate. There is also a very single-minded mindset about it.

Could probably think of more.

Those are the parallels that I can see there.