Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://qoto.org/@olives/111889654346596290 Added more stuff on why porn censorship is a bad idea. #ukpol

An additional bit on why "porn censorship" (perhaps, even some themes) is bad. For context which might help in reading this, I suggest reading everything else attached to this post first.

Some points about censoring fictional content there (censorship is a bad idea):

1) It might fuel someone's persecution complex. The idea of a dangerous world where people are out to get them. Feeds anxiety, alienation. It's happened a fair bit. It doesn't actually do anything positive.

2) Someone might see someone as an idiot or crazy (that's not wrong, lol). In any case, it poisons the well as someone is not seen to be credible or competent in these matters at all.

3) It violates someone's free expression. People have these things called rights, that's important.

4) Bad people don't need it. They can still do bad things. Good people are who'd suffer.

5) It violates the Constitution. Multiple constitutions.

6) Punishing someone because they resemble someone unpleasant isn't good. Also, due process still applies, in any case...

7) Can be a coping mechanism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/04/25/data-centers-drought-water-use/ Another problem with giant services which do everything.

A little birdie tells me that I should drop the "porn isn't actually bad" science into #ukpol.

I imagine attacking "violent porn" would probably wind up attacking BDSM, and maybe, even animated violence, even though that is probably not what someone is thinking of when saying that.

Also, there was one which coded "taboo themes" (i.e. I guess incest) as "violence", even though it's not really what would come to mind when someone says "violence" either. Also, someone almost certainly doesn't want to go and actually do that...

There was also a researcher who pointed out that anything which could be construed as "violence" would (i.e. spanking) by someone with a bone to grind.

Arguing that shutting down the Internet (or major sites) is acceptable collateral damage doesn't make a "save the children" proposal any more convincing.

Obscenity is when someone pretends they can get rid of something they don't like by writing some words on a piece of paper and ending up creating more of the problems they're pretending to solve.

When someone complains about "porn being violent", then they admit that that is what they like to go out of their way and watch.

Also, quite a few things which get blamed on "the porn" are actually general mental health issues which could be treated more normally, and crucially, without conflating it with porn.

No, Olives, instead of doing that, we can violate people's human rights, so that, uhh... Something.

Just complaining on page 10 of a thread hardly anyone reads, on an obscure site, is a very effective way of fighting bad doll law proposals.

It is also interesting how in this culture of individual responsibility, someone might gear up to put blame onto "the porn" (even though, this can be a recipe for maximizing harm).

In fairness, it's not as if there aren't external influences, such as, say, socioeconomic conditions which might be at play.

You know, this stuff still applies.

They're not really looking to make people's lives better, they're thinking of ways to ruin them, to implement their fucked up ideology.

I concur with the idea that ECPAT are evil monsters.

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/06/content-moderation-at-scale-is-impossible-to-do-well-child-safety-edition/

Obligatory shout out about how this AI panic is trouble[1].

Back to the topic at hand:

This is something which we call the "Scunthorpe Problem"[2]. The name comes from (censorious and half-baked, though not that rare) algorithms which kept finding the word "cunt" inside the word "Scunthorpe" despite it being a completely valid location in the U.K.

As for this specific matter with the "child porn warnings", when I say that warnings are fuzzy[3], I really do mean "fuzzy" as in "Oh, it might appear... Maybe." (though, in that case, moderation is often the better option).

Also, bad actors might change their language to... Something weird... There are a few examples which I won't mention. In one well-documented one from 2020, they started talking about "pasta".

Also: "Part of the problem is that much of it is a demand-side problem, not a supply side problem. If people are demanding certain types of content, they will go to great lengths to get it"

For the second example that @mmasnick gives, there is actually no legitimate reason for this platform to be doing this.

A few policies, as written here, actually appear to originate from lobbying from QAnon. It's not a policy decision, it's a blunt and misguided PR move. Even when it does not involve "QAnon" (so not that entire passage), they still seem to be clustered in the years 2018, 2019, and 2020, and crucially, involve Morality in Media.

1 https://qoto.org/@olives/111866367418212996

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem

3 https://qoto.org/@olives/111853578250172533

https://nichegamer.com/winnie-the-pooh-blood-and-honey-2-tigger-new-trailer/ Lol.