Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault
As far as porn is concerned, some studies even indicate lower crime rates and abusers having consumed *less* porn than other groups.

I'm less concerned about that though, and more whether anyone's been harmed by it. If it involves consenting adults / non-existent people, I think that's fine.

I don't really care about particular kinks, even if they're real weird to me, hey, whatever makes someone happy.

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.

Ugh... There's more puritanical nonsense, so it looks like I have to debunk that again...

First off, 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 that porn is this awful thing:

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 also 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, or the "link" is a phantom due to methodological limitations).

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, and a bad actor could still do bad things). 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.

Fourthly, while I'm not making a point about anything in particular, to inoculate you against potential problematic arguments, it's worth mentioning the basic precept that correlation does not imply causation.

Let's use ice cream as an example. Everyone loves ice cream, right? Well, I like ice cream.

Anyway, ice cream is correlated with crime. No one would say ice cream causes people to go out and commit crimes though. Just because there is a "correlation" doesn't mean it is meaningful (curiously, both are apparently also correlated with warmer weather, some think that is the real culprit here). And that's not the only way in which correlation might not imply causation. That might come in useful somewhere...

Fifthly, here's one just for #auspol: https://reason.com/2015/07/23/despite-all-the-panic-millennial-teens-h/ Basically, U.S. data shows teens having less sex with each other (in a world with more porn).

While I generally don't dive into this, I saw a few bad faith remarks which are so outrageous that I feel compelled to respond.

First off, when talking of abuse, can we not conflate fantasy (i.e. non-existent people) with reality? This is not only defamatory (someone was sued over something similar in 2021, as it turns out, if you flat out lie about someone like that, that can lead to legal trouble), it's a recipe for disseminating misleading information, wrong, impinges on fundamental rights (freedom of expression, privacy, due process, and maybe more), and wastes resources / money in the worst possible way.

Those who push this tend to be very bad faith actors. The worst is when someone is scared of a "written story"(1) or a "cartoon"(2). These are fairly common and mundane things. This just shows how extreme someone's position really is.

I think it's time to grow up, adapt to the world, and not cosplay as a Karen from the 90s who'd get offended about everything. It also has nothing to do with crime (3,4).

Then, there're cases where someone thinks that because something involves some novel technology, such as "AI" or "VR", they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes, and advocate for someone to have zero rights.

So, let's talk about this too.

I've commented on VR safety before (5), now my ideas here might not be the best. Still, it's likely better than demanding someone to magically "fix something", to rattle the drum, and to demonize random people incoherently. Not a high bar, huh.

I'm also seeing terms like "VR CSAM". One of the problems with using exploitative language like "CSAM" (the term "CSAM" itself appears to originate from Australia) here is that we literally have no clue what the hell someone is talking about, especially if they talk like that to talk about someone who doesn't exist in the same breath (and we know they do this).

This is a very big problem, among a few bad actors, who appear to do this very deliberately. Is it that someone has found some creative way to get child porn (18 U.S.C. 2251) in, as unlikely as that is? Or is it something fictional, which we've known about, and we know is not that uncommon?

Intuitively, this doesn't seem like it'd be a particularly good medium for this. Someone could project it onto a plane, however, this would be of particularly low quality, in comparison to viewing something on a regular monitor.

Considering every violation of 2251 is a potential risk to someone, what is the motivation for someone to take on this particular risk? Why risk being dragged up on a scary law for something which provides little additional value? For the sake of being evil?

While depicting someone as a cartoon villain might be appealing as a tool to serve a political end (6), cartoon villains tend to be beings which exist within the world of cartoons, not the real world.

Even supposing someone did do that, few would likely do it, and I don't see why someone wouldn't be able to punish them for this specifically. More crucially, a problematic person would be distinct from non-problematic people, just as someone who watches murder flicks is distinct from actual murderers (though, this might not be the best example to use here).

Also, like black markets in relation to drugs (7,8), it doesn't feel like pushing things underground here could possibly do any good.

There are a few other potential points, however, in interest of not repeating myself, I will point out that the points I have already made here are also applicable to them. This likely doesn't apply to just the preceding portion.

Onto the next one, "AI", I initially treated this one (9) in the same fashion as with (2), although I later changed my approach as it was insufficient for dealing with this.

First, I had to address the issue of potential pseudo-photographs *(10), a phenomena which is vanishingly rare (11), and distinct from other communities (11,12), though mentioned examples of pseudo-photographs tend to be anecdotal with a sensationalistic leaning, and tends to conflate possession with distribution.

Among other things, these factors made arguments along these lines pretty moot and inherently disproportionate. Also, whenever the State gets involved, it is usually a recipe for trouble, the State is generally not going to help (13).

* This term is used inconsistently on here.

Also, it's not as if this itself isn't exaggerated.

One concern trolling argument, originating from the early 90s (and occasionally dusted off for dramatic effect, despite it's lack of substance), appeals to the possibility that it might be "inconvenient" for cops. This ignores though that in around thirty years, this has never really been a problem. We also shouldn't be architecting society for the convenience of cops.

It also ignores the police have never had more tech (which they use and expand) than they do now to investigate leads (they're drowning in them), only focusing on "inconvenient" hypotheticals. Even more problematically, it's a "War on Drugs" kind argument (14,15), and they already have tools to deal with it in pertinent cases (no, they don't need an obscenity law to do this, good grief).

Quite a few arguments don't actually make sense, especially when they try to conflate them with things which aren't even close to looking like pseudo-photographs. This makes clear such arguments are not intended to go after that. They're just pretexts for censorship.

There is also a bit of conflation between "sexually harassing a minor" and "generative content". It's important to point out the former conduct seems to be illegal. It's also not a protected expression. Also, what does an evil thing someone does have to do with anyone else (quintessential "guilt by association"). Also, it's a sensationalistic anecdote and it doesn't require this.

There is also a bit of appeal to the stigmatizing and pseudo-scientific concept of "deviance". It's a lazy approach where someone tries to conflate a bunch of random sexual phenomena in a vain attempt to try to demonize it all. It's an attempt to remove nuance (16,17,18,19,20,21) from complex discussions.

"deviance" itself has it's roots in traditional religious morality, where any form of sexuality which differs from the "norm" (which isn't a real thing) is "deviant", "warranting suspicion", or "malevolent". This is why this concept is inherently problematic. It seems to either spread from extreme religious figures, or individuals who spend a lot of time in their company.

"deviance" also lends itself to someone picking out sensationalistic anecdotes (which are otherwise quite irrelevant), simply because these might be more salient to them, or because they think it might serve their argument. Like this though, someone could literally make anything, even drinking water, look bad. In fact, though this is unrelated to this, there was a parody where someone spoke about "water" with spooky and ominous sounding language and asked to ban it (22).

Strangely enough, people seem to feel better, and may even engage in the activities these religious people don't like less, when they accept themselves, a key component of ACT (30,31,32).

Nonetheless, trying to police what adults do in the privacy of their own homes, when they're not bothering anyone else, purely on moral whims is surely something to move past. Who is anyone else to tell someone what they can and cannot do based on an antiquated form of morality?

As for chatbots generating fantastical scenarios, I rebuked someone for virtue signalling and pretending this is "exploitation" (33). It's not. It's someone playing with a chatbot to create some absurd and ridiculous scenario. It's a mundane recreational activity although, it can have therapeutic benefits.

One of the main reasons I rebuked them, is because they played dumb, played stupid, when some company engaged in censorship, and it triggered a not small scandal, and for the very *reason* of therapeutic benefits to a few customers. You can't cover something and completely ignore something so relevant to the subject matter like that.

I'll also deduct points from the person who believes that moving your eyes back and forth is a "miracle cure."

When I say that debunking things takes time and resources, I really do mean that, as can be evidenced by this very post. Frankly, I'm of the opinion these people tend to be bad faith actors, and know damn well they're talking crap. People should stop letting them get away with it.

1 https://qoto.org/@olives/111145583758663294

2 https://qoto.org/@olives/111150762678131671

3 https://qoto.org/@olives/111083302650803082

4 https://qoto.org/@olives/111164674886858482

5 https://qoto.org/@olives/111016637636133512

6 https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-qanon-became-obsessed-with-adrenochrome-an-imaginary-drug-hollywood-is-harvesting-from-kids

7 https://qoto.org/@olives/110388712350966675

8 https://qoto.org/@olives/111179349829778300

9 https://qoto.org/@olives/110616056242888138

10 https://qoto.org/@olives/110740274413433043

11 https://nichegamer.com/attorney-general-united-states-consider-ai-art-ban-child-imagery/

12 https://jere.my/generative-ai-and-children-prioritizing-harm-prevention/

13 https://qoto.org/@olives/111052013744894283

14 https://qoto.org/@olives/111131027174340804

15 https://qoto.org/@olives/111139125304774810

16 https://qoto.org/@olives/111134500696068626

17 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-sex/202110/sex-sleeping-person-the-psychology-somnophilia

18 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-sex/202003/why-are-rape-fantasies-so-common

19 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-sex/201911/our-7-most-common-sexual-fantasies

20 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-of-sex/202212/why-animated-porn-is-so-popular

21 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/talking-apes/202207/who-likes-violent-porn-new-research-upends-expectations Though, someone pointed out that 90% is cherry-picked from a study from 20 years ago, and it wasn't a representative sample, to start with. Also, extreme religious figures are capable of using / parroting secular sounding arguments.

22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_parody

30 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789410000043

31 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29702013/

32 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/women-who-stray/202302/pressure-to-abstain-from-porn-use-may-mean-mental-distress

33 https://qoto.org/@olives/110675159305199891

HIDIVE Debuts ‘#SundayWithoutGod’ #Anime Streaming Today http://dlvr.it/T24hWF

OMORI - BASIL POP UP PARADE Figure🌼 Preorder Available!
🛑https://meccha-japan.com/en/figures/128346-figure-basil-omori-pop-up-parade.html
#OMORI #BASIL #Game

It should be! (Though I don't know how the courts have ruled.)

I'm tempted to call my representatives about this case. They're all GOP, I don't believe they care, but their staff will at least politely listen. 🤷‍♂️

https://reason.com/2023/07/26/he-spent-10-years-behind-bars-without-being-convicted-hell-have-to-wait-longer-to-have-the-case-resolved/ Isn't it unconstitutional to lock someone up for a decade without a trial?

https://www.thefire.org/news/victory-after-fire-lawsuit-georgia-city-rescinds-law-requiring-mayors-permission-protest FIRE has been busy beating unconstitutional ordinances.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/03/1179990709/tennessee-drag-show-law-ruling Tennessee's drag show ban ruled unconstitutional.

https://www.badinternetbills.com/ United States. You should oppose all these bad unconstitutional bills.

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://edri.org/our-work/portugal-new-data-retention-law-fails-at-the-constitutional-court-parliament-will-try-for-a-third-time/

"The Portuguese Constitutional Court has declared a new data retention law proposal to be unconstitutional. The law proposed, among other things, general and indiscriminate retention of people’s telecommunications data – like traffic and location data – for up to six months for the purpose of investigating serious crime.

The proposal had been approved in the Parliament and it was supposed to replace the previous data retention law invalidated by the same court in 2022. The law was declared invalid following a complaint presented to the Justice Ombudsman by EDRi Member D3 – Defesa dos Direitos Digitais, in 2017.

In response to the Constitutional Court’s decision, the Parliament has swiftly approved another dubious data retention regime in the beginning of 2024, which might face the same fate of being declared unconstitutional…for the third time."

"On January 5 2024 a new law proposal was approved in the plenary.

However, as argued by D3, the new data retention regime is not any less problematic. The new law does not dictates a data retention scheme directly, but allows it through an authorisation from a special section of the Supreme Court. It will be up to the Supreme Court to define the terms of each data retention authorisation, with the law solely requiring them to be proportional and for the purpose of investigating serious crime. The law does not set duration limits, specific legal grounds for data retention to be authorised, or the criteria for it to be considered proportional."

#privacy #dataretention