Olives @olives@qoto.org

First, the New York Times assumed it was so sweeping that deepfakes would be protected, then they came up with sweeping language the other way, then they gravitated towards something more accurate.

To be fair, I have to give them credit for putting the work into their reporting to fix that.

Even the New York Times put out an article saying it requires an "identifiable minor" (one of the articles they put out prior to that was more ambiguous).

Okay, I think I'm done with that. Too much time spent on one bad take.

Whether his lawyer says he is innocent of that crime of abuse or not, it doesn't change that the prosecution charged him with that.

Part of the problem is that DOJ likes to salaciously comment on whether someone is degenerate or whatever rather than just sticking to the point.

One possibility is that he heard about that abuse case a week ago (we've known about these for years), caught wind of a whiff of "info" about it, and now fancies himself an expert. It's frustrating.

We are really reaching a new low in arguments for censorship.

I've even seen that abuse case used to argue that that might be why one platform has a particular policy, *despite the platform itself saying they were going far beyond the law in their moderation*.

Most importantly, be wary of speculating. For instance, one case which was assumed to be about cartoons actually seemed to involve something "photorealistic", if you actually dug into the court records.

Now, I see a user spreading disinformation (representing speculation pulled out of their ass as "fact").

For instance, they are misrepresenting a case about someone being convicted for child abuse as being about "art". There were due process concerns with this case, which raised Sixth Amendment issues, however, it was not as painted here. Plus, it involved the Fifth Circuit which has been doing bizarre things lately. These were not the only issues at play here.

It is also important to remember that sexual content depicting a particular minor is *not* protected by the First Amendment (although, it would require intent). There have been a few cases like that.

Misinformation like this can be troublesome. Please don't spread it.

Gmail is still worse for a number of reasons.

The anti bot algorithm on Tutanota is very aggressive, so it's not one I typically recommend.

Has Star Trek ever shown another galaxy or are they just moving around the Milky Way?

It looks like a lawmaker from the Constitutional Democratic Party in Japan is concerned about financial censorship too.

"we've had #VR since the 90s"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17euo2DzBZI Here's a funny 90s ad for the Virtual Boy.
The quality of the actual games was pretty bad though

It talks about how it's going to change the world and do all these amazing things. There are a lot of hypotheticals and maybes. There is even speculation you might be able to "control it with your mind" in the future (an idea straight out of science fiction).

I'm reading a piece that is supposed to be a serious commentary on the "metaverse" and it reads like some sort of promotional marketing material.

A feature to allow users to block each other probably reduces the amount of work a company might otherwise do in moderation.

So, I don't think "removing the block function to save money" is something that would come up with the typical company.

I wouldn't be surprised if aggrieved people were more likely to respond to a think of the children group's poll.