Olives @olives@qoto.org

Also, just because an "age verification" system supposedly only does one thing now doesn't mean the government won't (maybe quietly) expand it later.

Apparently, Rwanda doesn't have a law against same sex sex (unlike some countries in Africa), although it's not a friendly place towards LGBT folks either.

Taking issue with the way a digital rights group words their concerns with age verification for sexual content doesn't actually alleviate any of these concerns (particularly the ones relating to security / privacy).

Rwanda is the sort of place which people escape from and seek asylum so they don't have to go back. Just a thought. #ukpol

It's kind of ironic when someone refers to LGBT rights as a Western influence when these anti-gay laws are a very clear example of "Western influence".

The British liked to execute people for that.

It's striking how so many anti-gay laws basically seem to originate from the British (hundreds of years ago).

Don't worry, my typos bug me more than they bug you, lol.

Say no to Censor Susie. #ukpol

I think the thing to remember is that it is fairly easy for looking for "risks" to bite a thousand bites out of a product, especially this sort of product.

From what we've seen of their products, they're very sensitive to just about anything, and it hurts the quality of their products.

What a surprise. A guy whose entire job is dependent on finding "risks" (concrete or not) to talk about reckons that the CEO hasn't been listening to everything he has to say. I wonder why.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/18/openai-putting-shiny-products-above-safety-says-departing-researcher
"Sutskever, who was also OpenAI’s chief scientist, wrote in his X post announcing his departure that he was confident OpenAI “will build AGI that is both safe and beneficial” under its current leadership."
"AGI" is completely made up bullshit. That is useful to keep in mind when reading anything these people say.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/12/sake-uk-japan-national-drink-goes-mainstream Interesting.

I covered this before in part but I'm not really a fan of third party URL shortener type services.

It's hard for a user to know where any particular link goes.

There *is* a way for a computer to dereference the link to figure out where it goes (I'm not sure if this makes requests or not to the server after a link service's server, I haven't looked into the technical details of it, I know such tools exist though), but a user would not only have to know about that tool, they would also have to manually put the URL into the tool to figure out where the link goes. That's not very user friendly.

Also, links appear to drift over time. One possible cause of this is the link expiring. That can theoretically be a security risk where a user encounters an old link and it points somewhere unexpected. Even without that case though, it's not a good experience for users.

A short URL also doesn't really add value. I have never seen a situation where someone has a shortened URL and I think "gee, this short URL is a great idea, I always have a bit of irritation as I can't immediately figure out where on earth the thing goes.

These things might also constitute a #privacy risk...

I see someone is upset with Facebook for reversing their policy of censoring media orgs when they just so happen to name a dead victim somewhere.

Even if you suppose the policy is good in principle, this sounds like it might be an annoying one to handle in practice with so many ways media orgs might do things across the globe.

Unless I take a closer dive, I'm unlikely to put too much time into this, and I generally avoid naming names of bad orgs to avoid giving them attention.

I've done it when it was important to do so but I don't want it to be my immediate reaction to them.

I didn't hit a tag with this post as it's fairly short, even if it adds context. I might do so in the future, if there is sufficient content.

One of the most appalling ways the namedropping is presented in is by claiming that there is a "standard" way of doing things, even though it is horrible, opinionated, and rights violating.

To give an example, something like a bikini is not really NSFW but I'm seeing people marking it as if it is (and consequently having it be blurred).

I'm seeing people marking content as NSFW when it is clearly not.