Olives @olives@qoto.org

The United Kingdom. Where people go to prison just so they don't have to sleep on the streets.

It isn't someone's awkward use of the phrase "revenge porn". It is that there are these weird people who hate porn and they go out of their way to attack it.

I've even seen someone using "NCII" (non-consensual intimate imagery) in a tortured fashion to talk about NCII which doesn't have real people in it (which is a contradiction of what the term even means).

"By definition, pornography is consensual."

I think that what people who talk like this miss is that bad actors already like to use the word "abuse" in completely inappropriate situations where there is no abuse.

Put it simply, it doesn't matter to them if the actor consented, it is more whether the themes offend them, or maybe they just don't like porn.

https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-don-t-let-anyone-own-the-law
"Court after court has recognized that no one can own the text of the law. But the Pro Codes Act is a deceptive power grab that will help giant industry associations ration access to huge swaths of U.S. laws. Tell Congress not to fall for it."
#FreeSpeech #copyright

https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/1818965347342361018
"So if you click through to the press release, you'll see they did prostitution stings while Comic Con was happening and called it. “sex trafficking” operation"

"adult potential victims of sex trafficking"
Hmm... That is interesting language. I hope they're not using the terms interchangeably as that would confuse things. One seems murkier than that (although, they didn't have to do it like this to go after that one).

It's not clear it has anything to do with the event, they chose to run their operation at the same time as it, and across the city.

Since there is an inquiry in NSW about online porn which might be taking submissions, here are some porn science points (among other things) which might be worth considering. It largely debunks anti-porn talking points. #auspol
QT: https://qoto.org/@olives/112853953984247398

I would like to see Labour revisit Section 62.

Historically, the British Labour Party haven't been the most reliable bunch.

For instance, coming up with an obscenity law and insisting that the Human Rights Act would exclude artistic expression from it's scope, rather than explicitly writing something in.

https://edri.org/our-work/empowering-people-to-flourish-and-thrive-a-vision-for-our-digital-future/ Unless you already understand what they're about, this is hard to follow.

It's nice to see someone who sees things my way that it's just weird that this one guy who reads the news is somehow treated like a big shot.

Usually, with this sort of role, it might be one person doing it, it might be another, it doesn't make much of a difference.

Is anyone surprised that Google opted not to retire third party cookies?

I suspect a lot of it though is just low effort grifting to raise funds and the like. This sector has a tendency of doing that.

Your honour, you don't understand. It was *streaming*.

I can't see that excuse working.

For a weirder example of the explicitly specific language, there is the straightforward language of "distribution", but they might want someone to explicitly cover "streaming". This doesn't make a practical difference. It's pure pedantry. Someone is still transporting x bytes from machine a to machine b. That sounds like distribution.

It's not surprising coming from people who clearly don't understand the Internet. They probably view one as a parcel and the other as a window.

It's honestly disturbing that a few people with strange ideas (and from one particular country) can go around trying to peddle their censorship prescriptions.

Let's suppose it wasn't the U.K., let's suppose it was the same circumstances but involved Russia, or I dunno, Ireland. It still wouldn't be good.

By the way, you'd be surprised by where a Russian censor might show up on the Internet.

This sort of mentality can be troublesome though, as someone might focus on minor crimes, rather than say, improving social supports.

Curiously, I'm encountering the theory that having a lot of broken windows leads to more serious crimes while reading fictional novels. From what I remember, the evidence appeared to contradict that.

I'm not making a particular point about how to handle crime. I just found it interesting.

"Even the most vile among us have free speech."
"Defend it all costs."
I would say that about human rights more broadly too, and it's a good thing that it by principle applies to everyone.

While ECPAT is supposedly an international group, their circle of people who I've seen engage in policy discourse tend to be overwhelmingly British, and are even said to have links to the British Conservative Party which has veered into the far right. It is said that they have a religious background.