Olives @olives@qoto.org

The information sharing platform also appears to be operated by Facebook which means that not small amounts of personal information are likely to be non-consensually processed by Facebook (even if you don't use any of their services).

One of the most glaring parts of it, apart from just being very underwhelming, is that it assumes that these platforms are well-behaved actors (and not actors who overwhelmingly act on frivolous grounds). They're not.

It fails to properly challenge these platforms, indeed, it doesn't seem to operate from that angle at all.

"They also appeared to be funding reports to justify it."

The "human rights analyses" they use to justify it substantially underplay the potential harmfulness of it.

Nice to know that Julie's site also breaks crawlers... Ugh.

"Now @MarietjeSchaake D66 - I thought she was a good MP and MEP at the time, but can hardly believe she hasn't spoken out about the EU's Orwellian chat control plans."

Well, go contact her (and anyone else for that matter) then. Politicians can be fairly unreliable.

Well, that's good. It's a terrible idea (and should be burned to the ground, we should be very wary of little faux fixes).

I don't really understand what you specifically want done about infinite scrolling (which contexts? how?).

At least Sports Illustrated is facing a, small, scandal for being stupid this time, not because a puritan is offended by a photo being too "sexy" for their liking.

"Discord server" is such a stupid phrase.

I see Patrick is trying to protect your privacy on domestic flights.

I see someone complaining about China being puritanical. It would be nice if they didn't import these bad ideas.

https://readwrite.com/californias-privacy-protection-agency-wants-to-put-regulations-on-ai-automation/ What do you think of this?

"legitimate interest" is basically what some websites use to force you to opt out of tracking five hundred times (one for each company running a tracking script on a page).

Though, sometimes they do both.

Since I also saw someone coming up with a spooky story (of how censorship can be a terrible thing), I thought I'd add one of my mine.

I encountered a pretty spooky and creepy coincidence once. So, there were discussions of censorship (and something about legality in some very random backwater country) involving "fictional minors", then, shortly afterwards (I'd say within a few weeks or so), someone (who was there and wasn't keen on censorship) turned up dead. Suicide. In that very country. Very eerie.

Anyway, I don't think we particularly need stories of self-harm or suicide to get to the, rather evident, point that Censorship Of Artistic Expression Is A Bad Thing.

In any case, with things like suicide, it can feel very surreal. Someone is talking normally one day (well, actually week in this case, but you get the saying), like any ordinary person. Then, they are no longer there. So, I guess be good to one another, yes, yes.

Lantern also likely violates the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), although I suppose that isn't a high concern.