Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://www.thefire.org/news/victory-after-fire-lawsuit-georgia-city-rescinds-law-requiring-mayors-permission-protest FIRE has been busy beating unconstitutional ordinances.

https://reason.com/2023/07/06/city-agrees-to-remove-ordinance-requiring-permission-to-protest/ City removes ordinance requiring permission to protest in front of city hall after First Amendment lawsuit is filed.

Apparently, the fediverse is still getting lots of new users each day, despite Zuckerberg making an appearance.

Who'd have thought.

Apparently, deleting your Threads profile means deleting your Instagram account. Sneaky Zuck.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/06/ministers-lose-legal-challenge-over-boris-johnson-whatsapps-covid-inquiry So much for all of those human rights claims to avoid doing this.

Apparently, Threads has no chronological or following feed, only junk curated by the "algorithm".

Apparently, Threads will dox you, by forcibly inserting any legal name that Facebook knows of elsewhere.

https://reason.com/2023/07/06/barbie-banned-in-vietnam/ Upcoming Barbie film banned from Vietnam for featuring Chinese propaganda.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-3423 One survey which looks into gun owners.

"Approximately half of all new gun owners were female (50% in 2019 and 47% in 2020 to 2021)"
Not the exact demographic I would expect to see. I suppose in America, everyone loves guns, lol.

https://walledculture.org/top-eu-court-advisor-says-technical-standards-like-laws-should-not-be-locked-down-by-copyright/ Should copyright prevent someone accessing standards needed to implement a law?

There are multiple problems with this implementation btw, if that is what they're planning.

1) It has a very high false positive rate (particularly at scale, where any false positive rate would be prohibitive) and would chill free expression.

2) It would undermine trust in secure communications.

3) It would undermine secure communications and make people susceptible for bad actors.

4) It could be used for purposes other than looking for actual child abuse, or images of actual child abuse.

The "sensitive content" feature in iMessage is very suspicious. It reminds me of the "client side scanning" encryption breaking thing which we've been ripping into lately.

It is also of dubious utility.

Someone might see sexual content in a private chat with someone they know well and that might offend them.

Sketchy.

https://reason.com/2022/12/12/not-guilty-still-punished/ It's very problematic that a jury can find someone not guilty of a crime, and yet, they get punished for it anyway (because they're also guilty of some other crime and the judge can boost the sentence accordingly).

https://tutanota.com/blog/chat-control German encrypted email service, Tutanota, opposes the Chat Stasi (as does hundreds of scientists).

Relevant to the other #onlinesafetybill.

I would strongly advise against any sort of mass censorship. Here's some examples of over-reach in regards to app stores.

If Threads, Gab, and Truth Social were to all start federating, that would complete the unholy trinity.

Contrasting with Gab who used to federate for a bit but decided they didn't want to do that any more.

It appears to be run by complete puritans.

This isn't a surprise, as it is Facebook, however, why on earth would someone use this over any other social network?