Olives @olives@qoto.org

That Pokémon Company doesn't seem to like that new game, lol.

I remember that all they did was release the same game over and over, every few years, with very modest changes (it's also been around thirty years since their first game).

Maybe, instead of worrying about others, they should worry about themselves.

Apparently, it's Data Privacy Day (and everyone seems to know it).

https://www.freezenet.ca/oklahoma-republicans-introduce-journalism-thought-control-bill/

"On Wednesday, Oklahoma state Sen. Nathan Dahm has proposed a bill that would require journalists to submit to drug tests, take courses in being “propaganda-free,” and get a license from the state."

This sounds a lot like a violation of the First Amendment.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240126224544if_/https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1831

I have concerns with this (proposed) bill (which messes with the "child porn" definition), which again, seems to be a bad "deepfake" bill idea. This time in the name of "saving the children" (which is always a red flag).

First off, this appears to be one of those narrow-minded tunnel-vision bills where someone thinks of *one particular thing*, but doesn't think of all the bad ways in which it could be applied. For instance, it uses a "reasonable person would regard it to be" test. But, then, an over-zealous prosecutor might squint at something which is quite unlikely to be that (i.e. a more realistic art style), and argue that it is. The only limiting term is "computer-generated", but then, that doesn't even have to imply the use of "AI" at all, does it?

It is also Unconstitutional, and could probably be dealt with in better ways. For instance, in the more narrow form of "sexual harassment" (which is probably what someone is thinking of here). That wouldn't involve inconvenient court battles, or human rights violations. I think that for the most part, people aren't really lining up to be evil for the sake of being evil, and I don't think "War on Drugs" type ideas are proportionate or effective.

So, I think this is a bad bill, and legislators should not advance it.

https://reason.com/2024/01/26/the-most-horrible-thing-ive-ever-seen-alabama-executes-inmate-with-experimental-method/

"The state originally pushed back against Smith's request, arguing that they did not have proper facilities and procedures to kill Smith through the experimental method. But the Supreme Court disagreed, denying cert to the state's attempt to overturn an earlier ruling allowing Smith to choose execution by nitrogen hypoxia."

"In an apparent attempt to save his life, Smith's lawyers have pivoted in recent months to instead argue that nitrogen hypoxia would lead to a tortuous death for Smith and that the experimental nature of the execution meant that the state could not guarantee a smooth execution."

This is a really strange case. However, they still shouldn't have been engaging in this sort of torture (and it's questionable why they feel such urgency to put someone to death).

From now on, we will refer to "Wisconsin", not as "Wisconsin" but as "Child Rape Loving State Wisconsin" because they love to promote more child rape in the name of being "tough on crime".

Anytime we refer to this State in future, we will use this name. And we will continually shame them, until they repeal any and all unconstitutional laws.

This post will be cited each time.

Since they want to grandstand in a manner which is clearly harmful to human rights, I am going to remove the very point they're vainly trying to grandstand on.

While on one hand, banning minors from social media is probably disproportionate, it is also kind of fitting for these people trying to drum up a social media moral panic to get more than they bargained for. Also, as always, there are privacy implications involved here.

"In 2021, Canadian cybersecurity firm eQualitie launched a petition to have the 2024 forum in Montreal. Dozens of tech companies and civil society organizations from Canada and around the world signed on to the petition, but the Canadian government appears to have ignored the request. A spokesperson for Canadian foreign affairs minister Mélanie Joly did not return a request for comment."

#Canada seems like an alright choice for the #IGF. Alright, a few proposals from politicians lately do seem like splinternet material (that's not good), but it also doesn't have Saudi Arabia's human rights record.

Though, I'm sure these are probably not the only two possible options.

It's an interesting article, although I'm not sure I like that headline.

https://www.wired.com/story/united-nations-igf-saudi-arabia-russia/

"THE UNITED NATIONS’ main internet governance body will host its next international forum in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. In 2025, the UN may take its discussions on the future of an open internet to Russia. Holding the Internet Governance Forum (#IGF), back to back, in authoritarian countries notorious for their surveillance and #censorship of the internet risks making “a joke of the whole system,” one advocate says."

#privacy

Of all the 50 states, there is no state which loves child rape more than Wisconsin, they love it so much, they're pushing clearly unconstitutional laws to make sure there is more of it.

If #IGF 2024 is being held in Saudi Arabia, where is IGF 2025 going to be held? Iran?

When thinking of which country I want to host a human rights conference, the first country which comes to mind is Saudi Arabia. You just can't find a country which cares more about human rights than them. #IGF

Sarcasm, obviously.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/san-francisco-vote-no-proposition-e-stop-police-testing-dangerous-surveillance

"San Francisco voters will confront a looming threat to their #privacy and civil liberties on the March 5, 2024 ballot. If Proposition E passes, we can expect the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) will use untested and potentially dangerous technology on the public, any time they want, for a full year without oversight. How do we know this? Because the text of the proposition explicitly permits this, and because a city government proponent of the measure has publicly said as much."

As there is chatter about "deepfakes":

1) I kind of find the idea of putting, say, the pope in a puffy coat to be funny. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I think people making such memes comes with the territory of someone being such a distinctive public figure.

2) As always, I'd like to separate the concepts of "sexual harassment" from "using generative AI to make consensual / non-existent porn". One proposed federal bill seemed to do that, though it seemed to have a weird negligence standard (I think not necessarily the "harm" one), but I also don't know enough about it.

3) https://qoto.org/@olives/111776493875055997 Kitchen sink bills have a much higher risk of impinging on free expression. Elizabeth highlights some of the issues which a bill might run into.