Olives @olives@qoto.org

The first consultation regarding classification and censoring things like sexual expression is going to be closing soon so I recommend looking at that before it does. #auspol #anime #FreeSpeech #FreeExpression

"It's not a platform's fault for blasting lots of reports which they reckon are very unlikely to be child porn and are never going to be followed up on." (paraphrased)

Actually, it is. Accusing someone of being a child predator (or whatever it is someone is thinking) is an egregious violation of #privacy and part of why #chatcontrol is so notorious.

And if we're gonna admit they're never going to be followed up on, then surely it should be a no-brainer to prune it back to protect people's privacy? If it takes legislation to do this, then so be it.

This U.S. "AI" consultation doesn't adequately take free expression into consideration and you might want to address that. #FreeSpeech

For an influencer, something like Instagram or YouTube might be a better choice, as it provides someone with a "comment section" which they can moderate.

The Twitter like model of the fediverse is more tuned to random people casually going in to talk to random other people in perhaps the most random of ways (something which a few people seem to dislike).

The fediverse is probably not a place for influencers with a trillion followers and I'm not sure why people want it to be.

https://nichegamer.com/moonlight-peaks-gets-publisher-xseed-games/ Interesting idea.

I thought of adding more to the post but I think I'll leave it at that for now.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/solitary-confinement-effects
As I've mentioned before, solitary confinement is a form of torture. #HumanRights.

https://reclaimthenet.org/uncs-crusade-against-anonymous-apps-sparks-free-speech-firestorm
"The University of North Carolina (UNC) is moving to ban anonymous social apps, supposedly out of declarative concern for the students’ well-being."

"However, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) non-profit sees anonymous apps as valuable tools for students to express themselves without fear, as self-censorship has been on the rise in US universities in recent years.

According to FIRE’s Program Officer Jessie Appleby, blocking these apps is tantamount to “getting rid of that outlet for constructive speech just because of a small amount of offensive speech, and that’s generally not how you want to approach speech.”"
#FirstAmendment #FreeSpeech #privacy

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/10/congressional-committee-threatens-to-investigate-any-company-helping-tiktok-defend-its-rights/
"As the rest of that paragraph makes clear, there was very much an implied threat that Congress would investigate organizations working with TikTok to defend its rights. I’m also hearing that others, like PR agencies and lobbying organizations that work with TikTok, are now facing similar threats from Congress."
This looks like a violation of the #FirstAmendment. #FreeSpeech

Where were you between the hours of 3 am and 4 am. No, I'm not a cop, I'm a marketer. #privacy

I need to verify you are not a child.

Just send me a copy of your ID, bank records, and credit card details. Thanks. #privacy

A flood destroyed the town. The economy isn't doing too well now. I wonder why. Huh, quite a few people are drinking alcohol now (maybe from losing their homes). Well, it's got to be that doing it.

Not a real example but you get the analogy.

Social isolation is known to be associated with abuse (and a host of other negative ailments too, for that matter).

So, "abuse went up around covid" is more likely to do with that than any of the other scapegoats someone might go looking for.

Remade the post again to add a bit of context.

It seems we're at the point where stupid takes from apparent students (i.e. Tammana Malik, who specializes in intellectual property law) are uplifted as if they're serious policy takes. For instance, talking about Section 230 as if it would only make anti-social conduct go away, rather than broadly chilling expression, or leading to poorer moderation practices (i.e. blunter instruments), and to a greater number of frivolous lawsuits which might be good for a lawyer's career but bad for everyone else.

While writing about policy might be an interesting project for a student, and in that context, it might be alright, the problem lies in when a stupid take is treated as if it is an actually serious and informed take, rather than a clumsy and harmful one. It's the typical "I've been here for a few minutes and I have a simple fix in mind for all our problems", and being ignorant of all the ways in which "simple fixes" have been harmful in the past. The issues involved are fairly nuanced.

Then, there is an invocation of the slogan "safety by design" which was invented by a foreign politician more concerned with looking powerful over tech companies (even if in a manner which is extremely harmful), and shaking hands with Discord's executives, than with protecting anyone's rights. "looking powerful" is not a valid policy goal.

It is a close cousin of "duty of care" where anytime a feature is misused, that is taken as an invitation to demand a company "does something"[1], even if that something is something completely unreasonable. Then, someone pretends this is somehow the same as workplace safety where someone's rights are not implicated by measures to "make things safer".

Vacuous demands to "do something" are neither useful or productive but they do contribute to a higher word count for an article. So, in that sense, they might serve some purpose, even if practically speaking, they're harmful for society.

There are also elements of hypothesizing fantastical scenarios which "require" rights violating interventions and barely have any substance to them, or where if there are any, it is not remotely proportionate (much like shutting down a park because crime might happen there). Just because someone can come up with an idea or hypothetical doesn't mean that it is useful to do so. Maybe, that is useful for "padding the word count" but it is not in the slightest useful here.

One example of this is with VR and "CSAM" (which has never been documented to be an issue there, and as I've covered before, it would be a very poor medium for disseminating things like photographs through). There is hardly an incentive for someone to do so and it would be a lot of work to do so. And if someone is doing it, how about going after them specifically? Then, there is a general sense that bad people might do bad things to people with VR. If so, we can presumably punish them for that, or you know, someone could use those tools which already exist to keep people a certain distance away, or something which doesn't involve clumsy censorship (censorship of say porn, same interpretation as in the porn science post, wouldn't solve anything, it would stifle a lot of legitimate usage though #FreeSpeech) or messing around with statutes which the writer doesn't understand (they also clearly don't understand the First Amendment, although that is a whole story of it's own which I'd rather not get into here). Comparing it to "AI" also doesn't make it akin to "AI"[2] (and concerns about free expression also apply there). #Metaverse

It also remains fascinating how something like "VR", something which hardly anyone uses so far, and is considered a flop so far, still attracts people to regurgitate ignorant hot takes about what should be done, almost as if a laboratory. It's even tempting to ignore these ignorant takes, however, it might also be dangerous to do so, with someone talking about messing with Section 230 and other sensitive statutes.

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism Politician's syllogism.

2 https://qoto.org/@olives/112402648186219830 Commentary on the U.S. Department of Commerce's "AI" takes.