Olives @olives@qoto.org

As I've mentioned before, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of keeping up specific posts on large social media platforms, but it would be complicated in practice legally.

Even raised some awkward questions of whether over-zealous enforcement isn't essentially criminalizing poverty.

I remember that the top form of child abuse which the government investigates is actually neglect (not child predators on the internet, I suspect this gets more media attention as it's scarier) and that overwhelmingly involves poor people (likely to be a product of poverty).

There's an upcoming election over who gets to be the next Governor of Tokyo and a few of the candidates are entertaining to see.

https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/EDRi_Summary.pdf I'm curious how someone manages to fight against the suppression of free expression when they don't have someone to deal with that. Is it a funding thing?

https://edri.org/about-us/our-team/ Barely any free expression expertise (particularly outside of "misinformation").

One of the dumbest takes I've seen from someone advocating against rights is that if the government over-reaches then someone can "just vote for someone else". #FreeSpeech #privacy

https://nichegamer.com/crossdressing-romcom-anime-senpai-wa-otoko-no-ko-premieres-this-week/ Interesting idea.

It still feels weird when someone says Meta instead of Facebook.

Just as you wouldn't use a hammer to screw something in, it doesn't make sense to pick totally inappropriate countries to host sites in (and it's probably more expensive to do this too).

This should go without saying but I would recommend against hosting anything in the U.K.

I'm not going to cover every bit of drama, lol.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/07/02/world/politics/french-left-macron-far-right-takeover/ "after the president's gamble on early parliamentary elections backfired" The Dutch made that very same mistake.

I see someone is suddenly discovering that the entire point of "digital identity" shenanigans is surveillance and other human rights abuses. Of course it is, if you think about it for a moment.

As you can see there, the landscape has a bit of nuance to it, and I'd like to avoid saying anything too simplistic.

https://qoto.org/@olives/112698746540580221 It is already covered here (which I only posted a new draft of the other day).

On second thought, I won't comment further on "AI". This is already covered in another post and in a better way than I could cover it here impromptu.

His arguments about E2EE were also very specific, so that he could oppose it for Messenger (until Facebook actually implemented it) but not for Whatsapp. Presumably, because he is supporting whatever it is that Facebook is doing.

His arguments about AI are also overly specific, intended to give Facebook a way out. It focuses on very specific types of offensive content but otherwise upholds their model of collecting data.

If he was a genuinely concerned person, he would have seized on more pertinent concerns about web scraping or other things. Instead, it provides a veneer of such scrutiny while doing no such thing.

Essentially, his goal is to trip competitors up on whatever he can come up with, while giving a pass to Facebook.

He dislikes transparent training sets, even though it makes it easier for someone to figure out if something shouldn't be in there. Why? Because, Facebook has a non-transparent training set (whose contents are unknown).

Even in the case of end-to-end encryption. He was opposed to it because Facebook was opposed to it and wrote grandiose remarks on that.

Then, when Facebook swung towards implementing it (due to European pressure), he doesn't care in the slightest about it.