Olives @olives@qoto.org

If you're wondering why the order is off, I deleted and remade one to add a bit more context in.

https://qoto.org/@olives/112357751287569818
https://qoto.org/@olives/112357704509030057
I was going to hold off on this a bit but if I have to see another bad take on this...

This is going to be a very bulky one to cover so I might as well make a separate post first.

The problem with a so-called "duty of care" (particularly online) is that any time something bad happens, someone can go complain about it, and there isn't necessarily anything reasonable which someone can do about it, and someone might ask for things which are entirely unreasonable which may even be of questionable efficacy and harmful.

I'm seeing someone comparing online moderation to wearing a helmet at a building site but it is really not the same.

If someone implements a safety measure, which turns out to be useless at a building site, then it's not typically going to violate anyone's rights.

If someone messes around with online speech, it will. So, vague and broad language and words and processes is really the height of irresponsibility.

Now, the FCC seems to be joining in on fining companies for violating user privacy (i.e. selling user data).

Well, privacy laws usually have a few more moving parts than just their service provider, for instance, someone could opt out of a data broker.

The cases I've seen tend to be more about service providers so that comes to mind.

Someone said that opting their data out of something like ChatGPT after the fact might lead to resource intensive retraining.

Keep in mind though that that particular model likely has to be retrained every now and then to stay current anyway.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-28/india-cancelling-visas-of-people-who-criticise-government/103688380 Sounds bad for free speech in India.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/apr/28/uk-prisoner-jailed-for-23-months-killed-himself-after-being-held-for-17-years What do you think of this? I think it makes sense for "23 months" to mean no longer than 23 months. #HumanRights

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/27/iraq-makes-same-sex-relations-punishable-by-up-to-15-years-in-jail More oppression works it's way into the world.

"“This amendment threatens those most at risk in Iraqi society. It can be used to hamper free speech and expression and inhibit the operations of NGOs across Iraq,” a spokesperson said."
#FreeSpeech

I thought of writing "Californian idea" but that would have made it harder to do the hashtag.

https://reason.com/2024/04/26/californias-new-social-media-law-invites-expensive-lawsuits/ New idea out of #California which is in violation of the #FirstAmendment. #FreeSpeech

It is also worth considering whether what someone has a problem with is a particular form of content, or some other conduct which can be independently punished (and often, one doesn't presume the other, and consequently, could be bad for due process and lead to innocent people being punished for the behaviors of other people).

I covered each point to get the gist of the law across (because I've seen quite a bit of nonsense in that area), not to make a point about the frequency of each particular point. Or relevance to any particular site / person.

"fictional children"

If I've said this once, I've said it a thousand times. If it's porn involving someone who "doesn't exist" (i.e. a fictional character), then it is generally protected by the First Amendment (there is also no scientific basis for prohibitions as I establish there, * also applies).

Typically, the law here follows the doctrine of the "fruit of the poisonous tree", so one theory for prohibiting "actual child porn" involves an actual minor actually being abused to produce it.

There is also a privacy like theory where if something deliberately looks like an actual minor, then that is grounds for someone being held personally liable.

The doctrine of the "fruit of the poisonous fruit" also applies to searches under the Fourth Amendment where if evidence originates from an illegal search then the evidence itself is considered tainted.

Also, keep in mind, that concepts like "child-like" can be notoriously fuzzy, and it's not in anyone's best interests for such a subjective call to be made.

* https://qoto.org/@olives/111888946356326887

I'm considering rewriting one of my threads, as the original was actually fairly impromptu (and involved a bit of pasting to deal with a particular situation, lol). I'm also seeing a very stupid argument which keeps coming up and I'd like to deal with it.