Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/28/justin-trudeau-rightly-points-out-that-internet-porn-licenses-are-a-dumb-fucking-idea-but-he-still-supports-internet-censorship-bill/ As @mmasnick points out here, it's certainly a concerning one.

I haven't looked too deeply into it, but what I've seen so far doesn't bode well for free expression (or privacy). Even more chilling seeing other's opinions of it.

It also feels disproportionate compared to what it is they're likely looking to deal with.

https://ccla.org/press-release/ccla-urges-substantial-amendments-to-the-online-harms-act/
"This is a massive bill that we need to examine in greater detail. Our preliminary read raises several serious concerns. While the CCLA endorses the declared purposes of upholding public safety, protecting children, and supporting marginalized communities, our initial assessment reveals that the bill includes overbroad violations of expressive freedom, privacy, protest rights, and liberty."

Canadian Civil Liberties Association comments on why the new bill is bad. #canada

Watching Russia reminds me a lot of watching Game of Thrones, and not in a good way.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/eff-dc-circuit-us-governments-forced-disclosure-visa-applicants-social-media

"EFF recently filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit urging the court to reverse a lower court decision upholding a State Department rule that forces visa applicants to the United States to disclose their social media identifiers as part of the application process. If upheld, the district court ruling has severe implications for free speech and privacy not just for visa applicants, but also the people in their social media networks—millions, if not billions of people, given that the “Disclosure Requirement” applies to 14.7 million visa applicants annually."

#FirstAmendment #privacy

While they correctly note that correlation does not imply causation (for instance, it is likely there is a third factor at play, perhaps a psychological one), there actually is a study which contradicts "criminals using more porn": https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01540933

https://www.woodhullfoundation.org/porn-does-not-incite-violence/ Interesting article with the Woodhull Freedom Foundation.

As a nit though, I have to point out, that if something involves a "taboo", then there's a good chance that that also got coded as "violence" by this methodology (even though that is not typically what comes to mind when someone says something is "violent"). That is what critics often point out. This is mainly for #3.

Well, these "I hate porn" people are extremely disingenuous, they're often (perhaps, paranoidly) pulling things out of their asses, or misrepresenting science... a lot... (more uncommonly) to try to come to a censorious position.

Also, censorship is about the most harmful thing that could be done, and it's not useful, and that is what they're about. They're not even remotely reasonable.

I don't really want to talk about specific people there, unless I have to. They're not worth it.

"DeFascist" I didn't know about that nickname.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/27/britain-reputation-rule-of-law-labour-three-pledges Cannabis is not the only unjust law I would like to see struck from British law, but yes, legalizing that would be good.

https://reclaimthenet.org/avast-anti-virus-company-is-fined-for-tracking-and-selling-user-data

"Avast, a well-known cybersecurity firm, has been confronted with a $16.5 million penalty from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)."

"Contrary to the firm’s promise of guarding consumer data against tracking on the web, the FTC claimed that they’ve been acting against their word. They’ve allegedly been gathering and marketing user browsing data unbeknownst to the users, and additionally misleading them."

#privacy

https://reason.com/2024/02/26/feds-target-journalist-tim-burke-with-law-intended-for-hackers/ What do you think of this case? #FirstAmendment

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/eff-statement-nevadas-attack-end-end-encryption

"EFF learned last week that the state of Nevada is seeking an emergency order prohibiting Meta from rolling out end-to-end encryption in Facebook Messenger for all users in the state under the age of 18."

"Encryption is the most vital means we have to protect privacy, which is especially important for young people online. Yet in the name of protecting children, Nevada seems to be arguing that merely offering encryption on a social media platform that Meta knows has been used by criminals is itself illegal. This cannot be the law; in practice it would let the state prohibit all platforms from offering encryption, and such a ruling would raise serious constitutional concerns."

#privacy

I suspect the frivolous lawsuit from Nevada comes from a desire to "punish Facebook", because they're seen as an unsympathetic bunch.

As we know though, even if they are an unsympathetic bunch, that is not an excuse for trying to set a dangerous precedent.

Someone should tell these politicians who enjoy locking people up (and ruining their lives...) that they need to carry their fetishes out consensually... Joking.