Olives @olives@qoto.org

Did you know that Facebook has a crawler which looks at images on the page on the other side of a posted link?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/13/facebook-incorrectly-removes-picture-of-aboriginal-men-in-chains-because-of-nudity
Once, they got in hot water for censoring an article from The Guardian (rebutting a claim by the then Prime Minister who claimed that slavery never existed in Australia) for "containing nudity".

Five years ago, did you think one of the biggest causes of the day would be to fight someone to stop them censoring books?

Good times.

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.