Olives @olives@qoto.org

It's funny how I'd never heard of this "Helldivers" game until hearing about the train-wreck that it is in the news.

Interesting to see a digital rights activist taking interest in Sony invading the privacy of gamers.

Reading more "AI" takes. I might write an opinion about them, if something interesting stands out, although it's just as likely that I won't.

Some folks point out that one contributor to dangerous conspiracy theories like QAnon are wildly exaggerated stories and statistics. So, let's not create a new one. #AI

The sky is falling! Everything is blowing up! We must think of the children!

Well, actually, the sky is not in fact falling, nor is it "blowing up".

How about now?

No.

Now?

No.

Now? Come on, it's gotta to be happening now. Tell me it is happening now.

no...

#AI

I'm reading a few policy related articles, and they can be like that, very out of touch vibes.

One sign of someone who has no clue what they're talking about is assuming that someone would want their avatar (especially their VR avatar, assuming "VR" is relevant is also a red flag) to look like what they actually look like.

Another one is mentioning it in context of the word "blockchain".

#Facebook mistakes Wikipedia link for child porn. #chatcontrol #FreeSpeech

https://nichegamer.com/hololive-releases-mischievous-preschool-voice-packs/ Also cute.

I should probably use superscript for the citations but it's a bit tricky to do on here. Like Something¹.

https://infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/statutory-review-online-safety-act-2021
It looks like they've moved another consultation up (for political reasons, it seems). This time for Australian online control. You can provide feedback there.

Some core things to consider:

One is the ratings type stuff being handled by the other consultation. Some of that crops up here too and it might be useful to refer to my other post on this: https://qoto.org/@olives/112263721995146390 I've also written a new piece on porn science here: https://qoto.org/@olives/112362450620045294 (I'd be wary of any calls to censor any sort of porn)

It mentions a "duty of care". The problem with a duty of care is that any time something goes wrong, that is an invitation for someone to attack a company, and there might not be anything a company could have reasonably done in that situation. Someone might even ask for things which aren't reasonable or particularly effective. There is also a cognitive phenomena where events in the past feel more predictable than they actually are[1].

There are comparisons to "workplace safety" but it is worth considering that matters of speech are not the same as wearing something to protect your head or feet on a construction site. At worst, a company might expend more resources to address a particular hypothetical. It is, however, not the same as someone's rights being violated.

There are words like "reasonable", frankly, someone could argue that something is "reasonable" which you find ridiculous. It is also worth considering the intent of such language, the intent is typically to push for someone to "do more", even if that "do more" might be harmful, sometimes even counter-productive[2].

Removing footage of "murders" could lead to evidence of war crimes being removed[3].

Some of the language is vague and seems to depend a lot on someone interpreting it properly. Like in the ratings consultation post, I would argue for a strong presumption against censorship for fiction in media that is for the purposes of entertainment (i.e. video games, books, and so on).

There is a certain expectation that services in other countries should be following whatever it is that officials in Australia want but that is not really how the Internet works and it could be harmful to expect that it works that way.

And yes, this one covers "age verification" for things like porn. As noted in one of my other posts, there can be privacy implications (including breaches[4]), and it could also lead to content or services becoming unavailable entirely, particularly when you consider the global nature of the Internet.

Update: In light of [4], I've made a new post.

#auspol #FreeSpeech #FreeExpression #anime

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias Hindsight Bias

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism Politician's Syllogism

3 https://theintercept.com/2017/11/02/war-crimes-youtube-facebook-syria-rohingya/ YouTube and Facebook Are Removing Evidence of Atrocities, Jeopardizing Cases Against War Criminals

4 https://www.wired.com/story/outabox-facial-recognition-breach/ The Breach of a Face Recognition Firm Reveals a Hidden Danger of Biometrics

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/05/us-version-kosa-still-censorship-bill
"A companion bill to the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) was introduced in the House last month. Despite minor changes, it suffers from the same fundamental flaws as its Senate counterpart. At its core, this bill is still an unconstitutional censorship bill that restricts protected online speech and gives the government the power to target services and content it finds objectionable."

"Our concern, which we share with others, is that the bill’s broad and vague provisions will force platforms to censor legally protected content and impose age-verification requirements. The age verification requirements will drive away both minors and adults who either lack the proper ID, or who value their privacy and anonymity."
#FirstAmendment #FreeSpeech #KOSA #AgeVerification #privacy

https://nichegamer.com/helldivers-2-cm-tells-pc-fans-upset-with-sony-to-refund-and-leave/ Not really a fan of linking accounts like that.

https://www.wired.com/story/outabox-facial-recognition-breach/
"Police and federal agencies are responding to a massive breach of personal data linked to a facial recognition scheme that was implemented in bars and clubs across Australia."

"“Sadly, this is a horrible example of what can happen as a result of implementing privacy-invasive facial recognition systems,” Samantha Floreani, head of policy for Australia-based privacy and security nonprofit Digital Rights Watch, tells WIRED. “When privacy advocates warn of the risks associated with surveillance-based systems like this, data breaches are one of them.”"
#privacy #FaceRecognition #auspol

https://theintercept.com/2024/04/25/absolute-standards-execution-drug-pentobarbital/ Absolute Standards named as company providing execution drugs.

If you're wondering if I already knew about this consultation opening, the answer is yes, but I was still processing the information around it prior to writing a post.

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/statutory-review-online-safety-act-2021
It looks like they've moved another consultation up (for political reasons, it seems). This time for Australian online control. You can provide feedback there.

Some core things to consider:

One is the ratings type stuff being handled by the other consultation. Some of that crops up here too and it might be useful to refer to my other post on this: https://qoto.org/@olives/112263721995146390 I've also written a new piece on porn science here: https://qoto.org/@olives/112362450620045294 (I'd be wary of any calls to censor any sort of porn)

It mentions a "duty of care". The problem with a duty of care is that any time something goes wrong, that is an invitation for someone to attack a company, and there might not be anything a company could have reasonably done in that situation. Someone might even ask for things which aren't reasonable or particularly effective. There is also a cognitive phenomena where events in the past feel more predictable than they actually are[1].

There are comparisons to "workplace safety" but it is worth considering that matters of speech are not the same as wearing something to protect your head or feet on a construction site. At worst, a company might expend more resources to address a particular hypothetical. It is, however, not the same as someone's rights being violated.

There are words like "reasonable", frankly, someone could argue that something is "reasonable" which you find ridiculous. It is also worth considering the intent of such language, the intent is typically to push for someone to "do more", even if that "do more" might be harmful, sometimes even counter-productive[2].

Removing footage of "murders" could lead to evidence of war crimes being removed[3].

Some of the language is vague and seems to depend a lot on someone interpreting it properly. Like in the ratings consultation post, I would argue for a strong presumption against censorship for fiction in media that is for the purposes of entertainment (i.e. video games, books, and so on).

There is a certain expectation that services in other countries should be following whatever it is that officials in Australia want but that is not really how the Internet works and it could be harmful to expect that it works that way.

And yes, this one covers "age verification" for things like porn. As noted in one of my other posts, there can be privacy implications, and it could also lead to content or services becoming unavailable entirely, particularly when you consider the global nature of the Internet.

#auspol #FreeSpeech #FreeExpression #anime

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism

3 https://theintercept.com/2017/11/02/war-crimes-youtube-facebook-syria-rohingya/