Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://www.itmedia.co.jp/news/articles/2412/03/news133.html Visa reaffirms it's position when quizzed by the lawmaker on a statement made by a representative (financial censorship issue).

https://endviolenceagainstchildrenconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/France-4.pdf Censorship database (for NCII, although could be troublesome) and age verification proposals from France.

Looks like another lawmaker from the Constitutional Democratic Party in Japan is concerned about financial censorship.

I'm probably more averse to boosting than I should be.

http://endviolenceagainstchildrenconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Brazil-pledge.pdf
"To develop, by December 2026, solutions to improve the age verification system in digital environments, in order to limit children and adolescents' access to content that is inappropriate for their age, while guaranteeing the right to data protection of these individuals."
Age verification came up in one.

It's worth remembering that there was a ministerial conference in earlier November where a bunch of countries got together to make vague pledges to do with thinking of the children (I think I already covered this one months prior but I figured I'd follow up on it). Some of this were things like ending corporal punishment (which doesn't have obvious censorial implications).

Some countries mentioned "online safety" which could mean some sort of censorship.

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*.