Olives @olives@qoto.org

Well, privacy laws usually have a few more moving parts than just their service provider, for instance, someone could opt out of a data broker.

The cases I've seen tend to be more about service providers so that comes to mind.

Someone said that opting their data out of something like ChatGPT after the fact might lead to resource intensive retraining.

Keep in mind though that that particular model likely has to be retrained every now and then to stay current anyway.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-28/india-cancelling-visas-of-people-who-criticise-government/103688380 Sounds bad for free speech in India.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/apr/28/uk-prisoner-jailed-for-23-months-killed-himself-after-being-held-for-17-years What do you think of this? I think it makes sense for "23 months" to mean no longer than 23 months. #HumanRights

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/27/iraq-makes-same-sex-relations-punishable-by-up-to-15-years-in-jail More oppression works it's way into the world.

"“This amendment threatens those most at risk in Iraqi society. It can be used to hamper free speech and expression and inhibit the operations of NGOs across Iraq,” a spokesperson said."
#FreeSpeech

I thought of writing "Californian idea" but that would have made it harder to do the hashtag.

https://reason.com/2024/04/26/californias-new-social-media-law-invites-expensive-lawsuits/ New idea out of #California which is in violation of the #FirstAmendment. #FreeSpeech

It is also worth considering whether what someone has a problem with is a particular form of content, or some other conduct which can be independently punished (and often, one doesn't presume the other, and consequently, could be bad for due process and lead to innocent people being punished for the behaviors of other people).

I covered each point to get the gist of the law across (because I've seen quite a bit of nonsense in that area), not to make a point about the frequency of each particular point. Or relevance to any particular site / person.

"fictional children"

If I've said this once, I've said it a thousand times. If it's porn involving someone who "doesn't exist" (i.e. a fictional character), then it is generally protected by the First Amendment (there is also no scientific basis for prohibitions as I establish there, * also applies).

Typically, the law here follows the doctrine of the "fruit of the poisonous tree", so one theory for prohibiting "actual child porn" involves an actual minor actually being abused to produce it.

There is also a privacy like theory where if something deliberately looks like an actual minor, then that is grounds for someone being held personally liable.

The doctrine of the "fruit of the poisonous fruit" also applies to searches under the Fourth Amendment where if evidence originates from an illegal search then the evidence itself is considered tainted.

Also, keep in mind, that concepts like "child-like" can be notoriously fuzzy, and it's not in anyone's best interests for such a subjective call to be made.

* https://qoto.org/@olives/111888946356326887

I'm considering rewriting one of my threads, as the original was actually fairly impromptu (and involved a bit of pasting to deal with a particular situation, lol). I'm also seeing a very stupid argument which keeps coming up and I'd like to deal with it.

I see Australian spies are apparently using that stabbing attack or something as an opportunity to attack encryption with vague threats of terrorism.

Breaking encryption would still be a bad idea though.

A KYC scheme for using a cloud hosting service (as the U.S. Department of Commerce is proposing) is ridiculous.

1) In many cases, these "cloud hosting servers" will already take a credit card, or some other thing which can be tracked down to someone.

2) This creates another spot where someone might be breached.

3) It is bad for privacy (and by extension, probably free expression).

4) Even trials are affected, which is actually pretty bizarre, which makes it hard to evaluate a product without giving them your personal info.

5) In many cases, they probably already take someone's personal info. #FreeSpeech

A KYC scheme for using a cloud hosting service is ridiculous.

A few tell me that Elon's social network has suspended "WholesomeOrenji". Supposedly for edgy #anime jokes, and for criticizing harassers. Or it could have been a really crappy moderation processes, likely involving algorithms.

When he said he would "err on the side of taking content down" (a using a weaksauce example), he really seems to have let himself go, hasn't he?

In general... No. Erring on the side of taking content down is not appropriate (particularly at scale and especially uncritically). It is far less appropriate than it already wasn't when someone goes absolutely crazy doing so for theatrics.

It is also far worse than even the previous #Twitter ever was, and it is not as if we ever sang praises to their high regard for free expression. So much for being a #FreeSpeech absolutist".

I don't have a particular opinion on how much funding should, or shouldn't go towards any particular function of a social network. Not behaving like a clown site though, should be a absolute bare minimum. Thank you.

https://netzpolitik.org/2024/mastodon-und-peertube-eu-macht-fediverse-dicht-weil-niemand-die-server-betreiben-will/ E.U. Institutions to exit the fediverse in May after pilot because no one wants to run the servers, lol.