Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/10/30/british-police-testing-women-for-abortion-drugs/ Huh, I didn't think the U.K. was *that* kind of country.

Also, looking back, television was actually really bad for free expression. I don't think you realize quite how much censorship goes into it (unless, you're a censorship wonk like me who spends a fair bit of time looking into it). It would be very stifling and very unpleasant.

Some of the takes from the worst people can be pretty crazy. For instance, at times, one practically suggested they wanted a fully moderated social network (both economically and practically impossible). That you could have mods watching every video. Every livestream. To make sure no one is doing anything improper. Just like the "days of television". If they couldn't do that, the site deserved to just be shut down. It's too risky.

"Ylva can't be allowed to get away with this."

I think she is another case where she knows very well what she's doing. She doesn't really care about your rights, and wants to achieve whatever aims she wants to.

She will mislead, outright lie, strategically ignore, and "keep happening upon" things which "appear" to support her (but are quite dubious and bad faith in their own ways.

Someone asked whether she is evil or stupid, but if you treat her as if she is merely stupid, she is going to take you for a ride, as will similar kinds of people.

And yes, you can't let her get away with using these kinds of antics. She's not the worst actor. Some of these shills / lobbyists are worse than she is, however, she is the bad actor with the most power.

I also wonder what'll happen after Ylva retires as commissioner. Is she going to appear on the board of a government backed lobby group? The revolving door kind of is a thing.

The usual suspects are either ignoring (or haven't noticed, though that might be giving them too much credit) this study which would appear to question whether control is a good thing.

https://reason.com/2023/10/30/brickbat-tiny-homes-big-problems/

"In March, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the state would spend $30 million to build 1,200 prefabricated tiny houses across the state, including 350 in Sacramento, in an effort to ease the state's housing shortage. He promised the houses would be ready this fall. But local media in Sacramento report the state still has not hired contractors for the project in that city, much less broken ground on any of the houses."

The really interesting thing here is that someone will probably always be able to do whatever they want with a home-brew "AI" tool (whether they like it or not) but they have this fantasy of control (which involves whipping good actors).

On occasion, they might try to create a pseudo-intellectual air, though their arguments tend to verge on the conspiratorial.

Things like trying to associate something with "deviants" someone couldn't possibly understand, with high levels of paranoia, and outright ignoring the obvious negative implications of their actions (and sometimes trying to spin this as a "good thing" to try to take the bad taste out of someone's mouth).

Vague, tangential, and unbounded speculation with language like "maybe" and "possibly" becomes a "gold standard". Any evidence (no matter how solid it is) to the contrary might as well not exist.

There are many reasons why it's hard to take anything they say seriously.

AI, VR, fiction, taboos, and more.

One of the most important points:

"When I say that debunking things takes time and resources, I really do mean that, as can be evidenced by this very post. Frankly, I'm of the opinion these people tend to be bad faith actors, and know damn well they're talking crap. People should stop letting them get away with it."

The reason here is really quite simple.

They plug their ears to censorship not being useful, and actually, harmful, and go out of their way to conflate concepts, and even to instruct others on how to do so.

Ironically, I didn't use the prison analogy because of the penal colony history, it's just a very useful analogy.

I think I'd be more concerned about Australia being more like a giant prison (the controlling aspect) than crime (which I don't think is a problem compared to other countries?)

Satirizing the crime is a bit odd (I suppose it comes from the place historically being a penal colony).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2023/10/24/youth-mental-health-independence/

"For years, Peter Gray, a research professor of psychology and neuroscience at Boston College, has been closely following two disturbing trends: the dwindling of independent activity and play afforded to children over the past half-century, and the accelerating rise in mental health disorders and suicides among youth during that same period."

"There are familiar factors that surface in discussions of the youth mental health crisis in America, with screen use and social media often topping the list of concerns."

https://qoto.org/@olives/111307215953208580
Gray actually mentioned in his paper that it had nothing to do with those, and put in a bunch of studies showing that. You have to read a fair bit in but it's there.

"But Gray suspects a deeper underlying issue: The landscape of childhood has transformed in ways that are profoundly affecting the way children develop — by limiting their ability to play independently, to roam beyond the supervision of adults, to learn from peers, and to build resilience and confidence."

Though it has that tag, he is actually also a pest elsewhere.

I'm concerned Salter is advancing an anti rehabilitation argument (quite a few of his arguments are anti rehabilitation arguments and it's irritating). This time effectively arguing that former child porn photo criminals shouldn't have social supports (which is not uncommonly argued to lead to less crime at that...), because a few can be jerks in their personal lives to others (really).

What a ghoul. I'm tired of his pseudo-intellectual language undermining every practical effort to avoid crime probably because it doesn't jibe with his bizarre take on "tough on crime". He doesn't have to like these people, or be their friends. But, what sort of person actively thinks up ways to make the world worse? That is the practical implication of what he does. Why is it any of his business? Why do we let him get away with this?

#auspol

https://qoto.org/@olives/111306160700543981 I think this is talking about the same thing, although the things people are mentioning there doesn't seem to jive with this particular text. Perhaps, I'm missing something.

https://www.makedmssafe.com/ What do you think of this?

International Justice Mission is not a new name. They've been accused of progressive groups previously of exaggerating rates of sex trafficking and of being anti sex work.

In a submission over chat control, they submitted a rather sleazy and manipulative proposal where they pointed to "terminology guidelines". These guidelines are far less guidelines than they are puritanical propaganda of how they want terms to be interpreted.

Usually, this is in a very harmful manner. A victim / survivor writing about their abuse? Well, you have just produced "child porn" and we've got to investigate you. IJM doesn't really care about the harms of what they do though. These kinds of groups never do.

#chatcontrol

https://xnet.maadix.org/nextcloud/index.php/s/NZX7cxbQSETid6g

Looking at this, I have a few points (though, I'm not entirely sure how it'd work out in practice):

1) The conditions for "reasonable suspicion" seem a bit vague. It feels the language could be stretched.

2) Presumably, the proportionality requirements might limit this (or to some extent), but one requirement for being served a detection order is that a service has been known to have been used to disseminate this content (no reference to frequency or volume) within the past year. That seems... Very broad?

3) Taking action to "prevent" things is fairly vague / broad, and could be a threat to freedom of expression, due process, or privacy.

Though, it seems like more of a strong suggestion in this particular document than mandatory per se?

4) Some terms look okay at first glance, but only when you completely ignore that lobbyists (including the religiously motivated group, International Justice Mission) are pushing for them to be interpreted in harmful ways (i.e. "child" not being an actual child).

#chatcontrol