Olives @olives@qoto.org

They were a pain for just about everyone.

Looks like the ad cartel has been disbanded.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/08/eff-and-12-organizations-tell-bumble-dont-sell-user-data-without-opt-consent
"Despite repeated requests, Bumble hasn’t confirmed if they sell or share user data, and its policy is also unclear about whether all users can delete their data, regardless of where they live. The company had previously struggled with security vulnerabilities."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/virtual-vegas A techno justice shirt.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-debates-banning-red-triangle-symbol-linked-to-hamas/a-69840776
"The red triangle, once worn by political prisoners in Nazi camps, is now a symbol associated with Hamas and pro-Palestinian activism. Opinions are divided on whether #Germany is justified in considering a ban."

"After the end of World War II in 1945, the persecuted survivors, their relatives and supporters embraced the symbol as a badge of honor for the fight against fascism — primarily in Germany, but also right across Europe. Likewise, the gay rights movement subsequently reclaimed the Nazi pink triangle."

"A red triangle — though not inverted — also appears, however, in the Palestinian flag" "When demonstrators drape the flag around their shoulders or if it is hung vertically from windows, it appears facing downward."

"The sign was, the motion added, a threat to public safety and order and was stirring fear, especially in the Jewish community: "The aim is to prevent the public visibility of the sign and to ensure that the use of the inverted red triangle in the context of the Middle East conflict and Hamas is punishable under law.""
#FreeSpeech

The proposed treaty would also be bad for privacy, but since that aspect of it tends to get more attention, I'm focusing more on the speech portions.

Make no mistake though, this is also troublesome, and you should oppose that too.
QT: https://qoto.org/@olives/112910653514655294

As someone suggested, if you don't like this proposal, then you can "Contact your political representatives. Tell them what is happening and ask them to demand the country maintains a full commitment to defending human rights."

Since there is discourse on the #UNCybercrimeTreaty proposal:

From what I remember of a draft, it wasn't proportionate at all. It assumed it was "fine" to encourage someone to take content down "quickly", as if this is a trivial thing to accomplish (and can be done so uniformly and universally, ouch).

However, this practically means violating the rights of a lot of people. That is no triviality. It reminded me of one of those one-dimensional tech policy takes where someone expects someone to wave a wand to fix the world or "why hasn't someone done this simple thing" (the "simple" thing being problematic, and probably not effective).

There's already a problem with corners of people's rights being cut in the world, and not getting much (if anything) out of it. Why should this failed approach be enshrined here? That is really the problem.

Someone has pulled a "wish list" out of thin air containing "simple" "asks". This wish list in practice would be a "license" to violate people's rights and inflict all kinds of harms, and it's not any one point or another which is bad, the entire approach to writing the thing is rotten to the core.

Some parts opt for awful censorious language by default, and seems to leave it up to individual States to optionally operate in a human rights compliant way. That turns someone's fundamental rights upside-down where someone has to beg, grovel, and work hard to convince others that they should have basic rights like anyone else. Or to not be persecuted (prosecuted). This is all easy for someone who doesn't have to worry about that to say, but not for someone who actually has to navigate that.

For these things, there are also already other treaties which cover crime. Maybe, they could be improved to, say, protect someone's rights better, but it's not as if this treaty is a shining beacon of liberty. #FreeSpeech

Also, consider that rather than just having the incompetence of one company, now you have the combined incompetence (and some of it might be more deliberately bad) of a company *and* them.

On occasion, they might engage in namedropping. If they can get a sucker to do what they want, they'll use their name (it doesn't seem they do so with their consent), *even if no one else agrees with them*.

One of the disturbing things about outfits like this is that they confidently stroll in, as if they know what they're doing, and then, judging from companies who have worked with them, they just come up with absolute garbage.
QT: https://qoto.org/@olives/112909081208430820

I wasn't planning on my first take today being something spicy but I'll go with it.

We call on #MasterCard to cease your "partnership" with the "IWF". We have watched for the past three years as you have made complete fools of yourself, utterly failing to curb abuse on the Internet, all while playing with all kinds of ridiculous "ideas" which only end up suppressing legitimate content. Enough already. Leave the policing to the police. #FreeSpeech

For one example of this, someone thinks a financial service is being puritanical but then they might have been hit by an algorithm because their fictional cartoon work contains the word "slave" in the title.

It's dumb. It's stupid. It's known to happen.
QT: https://qoto.org/@olives/112903563943931121

When trying to figure out why something has been censored, remember that the reason can sometimes be dumber than you think.

Since someone is curious, yes, someone has been sued for defamation before for misrepresenting some fictional sexual thing as if it is real.

On second thought, I'll add a tag to that one.

https://intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2024-ws-62-childrens-rights-and-ai-digital-textbooks
"President Yoon Suk-yeol said: "Textbooks … should now be phased out... Education should transition to individualized, tailored approaches." In short, #AI will be made to study the particular needs and talents of each student and present next learning goals tailored to those needs and talents."
Sounds suspicious.

Sometimes, I think it's the NIMBYs who tie up housing.

You would think it'd be simpler to just provide people with housing.