Olives @olives@qoto.org

"think of the children" ideologues love control and monitoring. The only problem is that these things can be harmful in a number of ways.

Yet, they pay attention to none of these problems, and instead, they double down on greater control and monitoring.

https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(23)00111-7/fulltext
https://cdn2.psychologytoday.com/assets/2023-02/Children's%20Independence%20IN%20PRESS%20.pdf

"Our thesis is that a primary cause of the rise in mental disorders is a decline over decades in opportunities for children and teens to play, roam, and engage in other activities independent of direct oversight and control by adults. Such independent activities may promote mental wellbeing through both immediate effects, as a direct source of satisfaction, and long-term effects, by building mental characteristics that provide a foundation for dealing effectively with the stresses of life."

A devastating blow to the "won't anyone please think of the children?" savior complex folks.

2) There's lobbying around getting the E.U. to spend time chasing things which aren't photographs (or their moving equivalents).

I think this would, all things considered, be a bad thing.

https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/historic-agreement-on-child-sexual-abuse-proposal-csar-european-parliament-wants-to-remove-chat-control-and-safeguard-secure-encryption/

With the one caveat that I haven't seen text for this (I'm relying on second hand accounts here), this sounds better.

Some points:

1) "Potential perpetrators and victims should be warned where appropriate, for example if they try to search for abuse material using certain search words."

A lot of the time, when this sort of thing is implemented, it is usually fuzzier than suggested here. Searches which "might be associated" with it. It consequently has many false positives, it seems particularly when it comes to non-english terms.

Though, a warning (if non-blocking) is an improvement over what that other article appeared to say. Also, the devil is in the details, if it is everywhere (even where it is clearly inappropriate), it can become a one-size-fits-all solution (which can be disproportionate or harmful).

2) "Providers who become aware of clearly illegal material will be obliged to remove it – unlike in the EU Commission’s proposal."

It seems okay, so long as it isn't any more restrictive than 18 U.S.C. 2251. If 2251 is overly restrictive in some way I can't envisage, that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with that.

3) "Public chats at high risk of grooming are to be moderated."

What does "high risk" mean?

4) "It must be possible to block and report other users."

Does this require an account?

#chatcontrol

I'm surprised no one has created art of Ylva peering through a window at you. For activism sake. #chatcontrol

https://edri.org/our-work/why-your-data-might-already-be-on-a-europol-list/

"Police forces around Europe seem hooked on the habit of collecting information on a massive scale and forwarding it to the EU's police agency, Europol. This undermines privacy, fair trial rights and the presumption of innocence. "

Taking action to oppose it now is just as important as it was before, if not more so.

Since I'm seeing bad faith actors wildly barking about "AI" and coming up with fantastical exaggerated "won't anyone please think of the children?" scenarios (though, not on the fediverse), I guess I'll boost this again.

https://netzpolitik.org/2023/einigung-im-eu-parlament-steht-bevor-chatkontrolle-nur-bei-verdacht/

1) That would only be the floor of where it might go. They could easily ask for more.

2) I worry this profiling system for porn site usage will hit far more legitimate usage (false positives) than it would any "nefarious usage". It's hard to imagine a porn site is a particularly good avenue for pursuing child porn photos reliably, especially a lot of it. This smells of religiously motivated lobbying.

3) It could still be extended to more content types (assuming they don't immediately find some "clever" way to do it here) and involves greater centralization.

4) Age verification for porn sites impinges on freedom of expression and privacy. This feels very moral panicky, a scientifically dubious moral panic (https://qoto.org/@olives/111083302650803082).

#chatcontrol

https://stopchatcontrol.eu Apparently, there is this new tool for opposing the #chatcontrol going around. It appears to have a petition and a tool for contacting lawmakers.

https://stopchatcontrol.eu There's even a change.org petition here (as well as options for contacting lawmakers to oppose the chat control).

https://stopchatcontrol.eu I don't know whether I agree with the use of GPT-3 here (mainly the potential for errors) but it's an interesting initiative.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67177330 Evil cop.

Looking deeply, there is a greater degree of conflation when it comes to "realism" and malfeasance, even when it is very far from being like a pseudo-photograph.

There is a certain level of conspiracy based on hearsay.

They admit they can be distinguished.

They appear to doubt their own arguments.

Also, seeing them making some strong claims, then saying things which would appear to contradict those claims (i.e. they're often images of someone who has been "de-aged") on pages people are less likely to read tucked in a sentence five paragraphs down.

Why do we let them get away with this?

Typically, people who push such arguments are fearmongers in quite a few areas.

They rarely isolate themselves to just one, and they have a history of misleading people, and making exaggerations, and fantasizing up catastrophic scenarios out of thin air, and of trying to stir the pot, so to speak.

Once you put aside the "novelty technology" bait which is designed to shutdown critical thinking, it becomes evidently clear that it's just them up to their old tricks.