Olives @olives@qoto.org

I think that as far as Microsoft is concerned, any "AI" tool should ideally be fully local, and also opt-in (from the user's point of view).

Considering that "AI" isn't reliable, I don't think the government should be relying on it.

Microsoft. Could you please respect user privacy? Thanks.

I am told that there are people who do the same thing but with a higher level of personal "AI" ethics, yes, although it seems strange to go full QAnon in any case.

Apparently, COPPA 2.0 has been snuck into APRA.

It's not surprising that there are people who basically make money off trying to drum up "AI" "scandals".

To be fair, there are a few which aren't as bad. One spoke out in opposition to the chat control, for instance, although there are still quite a few which are pretty bad.

Also, quite a few of these groups have stranger motivations. They might be religious extremists (some would call them cults), or they might be associated with these culture warriors in government (quite literally how they get funded).

Perhaps, someone wants to get revenge for some personal incident. There are quite a few of those.

A person from a "save the children" group is unlikely to lean towards liberty because they want to basically have an excuse to punish someone without due process and without worrying about pesky things like basic fundamental rights.

They're kind of optimized for that. That's what they get paid for.

So, when they open their mouths, and say some crap, it's not really meaningful and they're probably going to put a lot of emphasis on the bad or negative hypotheticals.

Virtually every article of QAlexandra's appears to involve her bitching about "AI" in some way so her motivation here is really not that mysterious.

I'm not keeping an eye on QAlexandra all the time. I don't have a take for every stupid take of hers.

The premise that a "bad person might like something" is fundamentally flawed and very dangerous and I can't really allow her to make this kind of argument just because she doesn't like one particular kind of content.

What is Alexandra bitching about now (a grifter of a minor journo).

So, if I get this straight, she is mad about so-called "photorealistic" "AI" imagery of "children" (not porn though) because she finds the fantasies of the viewers to be upsetting...? (Even the most "scandalous" ones she can produce appear to be pretty clear fantasies, frankly.) Ugh. She even cites someone from a "save the children" outfit who is best buds with an odious far right figure with a bizarre fascination with sex abuse rituals in schools. Then, there is another from another "save the children" outfit offering up his hot takes (working hard to "join the dots", it's what he's paid to do).

There are also strong QAnon type vibes where she "joins the dots" and makes things up about it, even trying to conflate it with people who post borderline child porn, or are otherwise up to no good without any real line of argumentation. One of the dots is that one viewer happens to post actual photographs (not porn).

What is really striking is the actual absence of an actual argument past "them and us".

Alexandra would be best served actually looking at the ethics in question of where it comes from, perhaps a critique of the actual technology itself (if anything), rather than trying really hard to push this whole thought police angle / Q shit. That would require a shred of intellectual honesty though.

At the end of the day, it winds up feeling like a lot of nothing. It's hard to believe Alexandra is making the world one iota better. It's a grift which is squeezed hard to produce clicks and views. That is what she is all about.

It's annoying how a few people like to literally make things up about "AI" to try to make it sound "very bad".

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/may/22/more-than-half-the-world-cannot-speak-freely-report-finds
"Half the world’s population cannot freely speak their mind according to a new report on freedom of expression.

In its annual report, the advocate group Article 19 found the number of people facing a “crisis” in freedom of speech and information was the highest this century after a sharp rise from 34% in 2022 to 53% in 2023."
#FreeSpeech

"keyword lists"

I wanted to cover this, because I'm seeing a bad faith British individual talking as if this is some sort of silver bullet or panacea for society's ills. In practice though, if you actually have familiarity with how systems work, you will know that this will run into a mountain of issues and be of questionable efficacy.

One classic issue someone might run into is the Scunthorpe Problem (which is ironically coined after an algorithm kept finding apparent "profanity" inside the names of locations in the U.K., such as S|cunt|horpe (Scunthorpe) and Penis|tone (Penistone), the | is there to make it easier to see how the algorithm read the words). One incident in the U.K. even had the mail filters of MPs reject emails discussing legislation regarding *sexual offenses*.

Another infamous example was when the abbreviation for Combat Power (CP) in the popular game, Pokémon Go, was presumed by an algorithm to mean Child Pornography (CP), and content was subsequently censored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScunthorpeProblem
You can read more about the general issue here.

Naturally though, you have people wandering in, ignoring all these past issues, and thinking they know better, complaining about why someone hasn't done something supposedly "simple" (which is not necessarily effective).

Someone also has to think of the context. Someone has to be able to discuss a subject without being at risk of being arbitrarily censored.

There is also silliness where someone gets mad at websites which deal primarily in fictional content without actual actors because of some silly keyword. Also, there was one where a weirdo at an American finance firm looked through the lens of his machine translator reckoned someone's joke about "abuse" in a foreign language must mean that something evil is going on and entire foreign equivalents to YouTube need to be shutdown.

#FreeSpeech

Reposting for #ukpol, although it wasn't written for that tag. Despite the scant / non-existent evidence for porn being such a bogeyman, it keeps getting cast as a scapegoat which is quite frustrating, so I am going to have to go over this... Again.

Even if online porn "might" be "problematic" to someone out there, it would not be anywhere remotely near proportionate to engage in censorship (or privacy intrusive measures, which among other things might pose a security risk), especially as it can be free expression to someone, and expression which someone might casually share as part of their more general interaction / engagement with others.

Sometimes, restrictions can lead to services becoming inaccessible entirely, rather than simply limiting them to people over a particular age.

A typical recommendation is sex education (perhaps, teach someone about respecting others boundaries?), not censorship (which is harmful in it's own ways). I don't mean criticizing someone for telling an offensive joke.

The science isn't really showing porn is this awful thing:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2015.1023427
https://psyarxiv.com/ehqgv/
Two studies showing porn is not associated with sexism. One carried out by German scientists, another carried out by Canadians.

https://qoto.org/@olives/110462274531891870
American scientists carried out a meta analysis of 59 studies. They found porn isn't associated with crime. A meta analysis is a study where someone studies studies.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31432547/
Nor does it necessarily seem this is the case among adolescents (the meta analysis also points to that). Here, the minors who used more porn engaged in less sexual aggression.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault
https://qoto.org/@olives/110400288665794817
There are even studies (across the United States, Japan, Finland, and more) showing that porn is associated with less crime, even among criminals.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31042055/
While an older Dutch study showed there might be worse levels of "sexual satisfaction" among adolescents using porn, a Croatian lab failed to replicate that.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563222001637
This is a meta analysis on sexualization in video games. It finds that studies tend to pick cut-offs where it's difficult to distinguish signal from noise. This increases the number of false positives.

There are also results which contradict the theory of sexualization being harmful. In the end, it fails to find a link between this and sexism, and this and mental well-being.

I'm also usually sceptical of apparent links, as the "scientific pile on effect" (as one described it) drives people to go looking for "links" between porn and "something bad" however tenuous it might be, or methodologically flawed an approach it might be (and later, that something is debunked, or the "link" is a phantom due to methodological limitations).

I could add it doesn't matter if they're "child-like" or "fictional children", (this is far, far more likely to hit someone good than someone bad who don't need it, and a bad actor could still do bad things)*. This necessarily excludes involvement of abuse or invasions of privacy. If it were actual real children, I'd oppose that on ethical grounds (though, I still wouldn't want to burn down the Internet / sites, because of unwanted bad actors). This is covered above but it is also kind of common internet sense.

While I'm not making a point about anything in particular, to inoculate you against potential problematic arguments, it's worth mentioning the basic precept that correlation does not imply causation.

Let's use ice cream as an example. Everyone loves ice cream, right? Well, I like ice cream. This also happens to be used as a classic example by others for this sort of thing.

Anyway, ice cream is correlated with crime. No one would say ice cream causes people to go out and commit crimes though. Just because there is a "correlation" doesn't mean it is meaningful. And that's not the only way in which correlation might not imply causation. For instance, warm weather is a far more compelling explanation for this phenomena. That might come in useful somewhere...

Here's a couple which were added for auspol:

https://reason.com/2015/07/23/despite-all-the-panic-millennial-teens-h/ U.S. data shows teens are having less sex with each other (in a world with more porn).

Misapprehensions about porn can be more about expressions of sexual orientations than porn. In fact, we've seen an Australian news outlet specifically singling out "anal sex" as a negative thing not that long ago, who would that disproportionately impact? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29702013/ Also, moralizing can be harmful (and ineffective).

Typically, responsibility is put on individuals to behave in a manner that is reasonable to them, instead of looking for a scapegoat whenever someone behaves in a manner which could be argued to be negative. This isn't to discount external factors (i.e. socioeconomic ones) entirely but there isn't always something sensible which can be done. People live their own lives.

We might also want to look at how alcohol is handled. We tend to look at this through the lens of personal responsibly, that someone is reasonable for consuming it responsibly, and not behaving inappropriately. Now, alcohol is not the same thing as porn, it is an actual substance, not some pixels on the screen. It further illustrates though how strange and unusual the idea of censorship here is.

Quite a few things which might get blamed on "the porn" are actually general mental health issues which could be dealt with more normally, and crucially, without conflating it with porn (which might even detract from dealing with someone's actual issues).

In fact, online censorship has increased in quite a few ways over the past few years and it doesn't appear to be any sort of panacea. It has, however, created a number of harms in it's own right, including even murder by practically forcing some sex workers to work with more dangerous clients. It also provides a space for abusive bigots to dwell in.

An addendum (from another post which might be useful to add useful context, we won't delve too deeply into this section):

An additional bit on why "porn censorship" (perhaps, even some themes) is bad.

Some points about censoring fictional content there (censorship is a bad idea):

It might fuel someone's persecution complex, especially in the context of *. 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 seem to do anything positive.

Someone might be more inclined to 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. Promoting distrust doesn't seem like a positive outcome.

It violates someone's free expression. People have these things called rights, that's important. This point comes from the original post, I'm aware I've covered this here more generally, still there may be value in reaffirming it.

Bad people don't need it. They could still do bad things. Good people are who'd suffer.

It violates the Constitution. Multiple constitutions.

Punishing someone because they resemble someone unpleasant isn't good. Also, due process still applies, in any case...

Can be a coping mechanism.

This is a good example of how not to legislate.

Vague and broad sweeping terms which suppress large amounts of speech for what is really just the convenience of a court and failing even at that goal.

https://reason.com/2024/05/20/san-diego-is-cracking-down-on-groups-for-exercising-outside/
"the city of San Diego, which revised its municipal code in March to prevent groups of four or more people engaged in commercial recreational activities—yoga, fitness classes, dog training, etc.—from convening in public spaces without a permit."

There's actually quite a few things they don't like, actually. Those are only a couple of obvious examples.