Olives @olives@qoto.org

When it comes to the Sixth Amendment, if you remember, there were some positive developments earlier this year.

I need to relax.

The not fun process of reading a report and it going on and on about abuse.

With one conference, there doesn't seem to be anything surprising about it.

It looks like there's an Australian there to complain about "child like sex dolls" (vague term). That is about the most unusual thing about this conference though.

There is some discussion of potential algorithms to find illicit activity. I'm getting snake oil vibes here. They really lean on that "magic algorithm" bandwagon.

It looks like there are a couple of think of the children conferences (I'm hoping we don't see British politicians spouting bad ideas) *and* a free expression event coming in the next few days.

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.