Olives @olives@qoto.org

It is a testament to the efficacy of this meme that the think of the children people keep complaining it, even though it is hardly even used.

"People really should stop letting them get away with this"

https://reclaimthenet.org/hundreds-of-canadians-have-been-debanked-in-the-last-five-years-report-shows The most concerning part of this is that it seems someone can be debanked in Canada with practically no due process.

I'm seeing a curious "child torture stories" framing for something from one bad faith actor. As you might expect, it uses exploitative language, for something which is likely there for the purposes of "shock value" or "horror".

Of course, when you tend to invoke something similar to pseudo-scientific deviancy* theories, you might theorize how literally anything might be related to "evil" (out of paranoia, or out of a more political intent), rather than a far more mundane explanation.

It is also quintessential "there might be something on the Internet which offends me" (especially, since it is very likely rare, and the Internet is *vast*). Perhaps, someone should examine why they really go out of their way to complain about such things.

I won't say this one is that Karen but there is also not much there.

* https://qoto.org/@olives/111191543236620885

Since it's probably a troll, let's add a bit more flair to this post.

How dare you be outraged that the government wants to come take your rights away! You should be happy! It is for the children!

How dare you show any emotion towards this!

Here's a bunch of words to shove in your mouth which you never said!

I am sure it has something to do with Big Tech! Yes! Yes! How could anyone possibly want rights!

I am sure your behavior is related to x, y, and z conspiracies whirling through my head.

I am Seven of Nine, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero One. I. demand. to. be. taken. seriously.

I'm now seeing a think of the children troll? sock? account on another site trying to conflate critique of a disingenuous use of "think of the children" for human rights violating purposes without rational thought with "critique of child welfare".

It's fascinating that a "think of the children" guy is now concerned that E2EE is not all that effective at thwarting adversaries (therefore, we should get rid of it), because someone could derive something from the metadata.

That *is* a problem, yes, although it is fascinating to see someone use it to argue for *worse* security.

Or we could take this as evidence that future systems need to be more metadata resistant, as some researchers, such as Sarah at Open Privacy are looking into (that is not the only system which comes to mind).

Imagine being in the line of business of shilling shoddy pieces of surveillance software.

Might be her subordinate in this particular case, although it seems close enough anyway.

Facebook pretending this model is "open" was always a farce.

People seem interested in this post, who'd have thought.

Of course, there is an idiot on the Internet who is commenting on obscenity without understanding what it is. Reviving the concept of "obscenity" would be very stupid.

It tends towards banning all online porn, because it relies primarily on the concept of "morality" (which is tempered by precedents which effectively neutralize the doctrine when applied to the Internet, and it's been unheard of in over a decade).

When it was applied, it was a *disaster* which struck best actors, and ended up created a darker market (every time the obscenity law has been active, things have gotten *worse*, obscenity laws *do not work*). It was a tool of state harassment, and accomplished precisely nothing. The head of the obscenity unit appears to have been hired by an extreme Mormon group which wants to ban pornography.

For pertinent cases, there are other laws which cover them, perhaps knowingly posting photography of someone without their consent or something (let's say it is an actual person, because we know there are "smart" bad faith people out there).

It is also probably unconstitutional.

https://reason.com/2023/10/05/texas-rep-joaquin-castro-warns-military-strikes-within-mexico-could-be-considered-an-act-of-war/ I don't think it would be a good idea.

https://reason.com/2023/10/06/reptile-is-a-gloomy-cop-thriller-about-law-enforcement-self-dealing/ An honest cop show. Cool.

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs/2023/10/uk-information-commissioner-issues-preliminary-enforcement-notice-against-snap/

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/leopards-eating-peoples-faces-party

I considered spending more time on this but I'd really rather not. Also, I don't agree with all of the jargon some people use.

https://reason.com/2023/10/06/the-social-media-moral-panic-wont-help-teens/

The social media moral panic has already been disputed by some scientists (who found the make-up of the data isn't as they'd expect, if the "social media is terrible" hypothesis was correct) but this is still an interesting viewpoint on it.

"criminals might learn from it" appears to be the new nonsense excuse for banning games in Australia.

The game "VRBOX" by "Level Games VR" was banned by Australia's IARC rating algorithm.

It's a shooting game which was banned because "criminals might learn from it".

Again, worth putting some pressure on territorial, state, and federal governments to not censor games / content.