Olives @olives@qoto.org

"VTubers should have the same sort of attire as actual people on Twitch."

It's worth remembering that #Twitch is a website with a background centered around video games. Video game characters / games have a wide range of expression. On the other hand, content involving actual people wouldn't align as closely with the video game theme (even if censorship is problematic here too).

A VTuber is a lot like a video game avatar, a video game avatar addressing an audience, maybe, but it isn't as much like someone performing in person. #anime

Due to looping posts, right after posting a post, my post is already buried under several new posts in my own feed.

"It is copyrighted" is not the only "offensive content" type argument which might come up.

For instance, something might depict someone without that person's content. But, instead of focusing on that, someone instead focuses on vague concepts of "offensive content" which once again sounds quite a bit like advocating for harmful censorship (it is also a distraction), if read literally (for instance, covering content which doesn't depict someone at all, and might not even use a particular technology / process).

Sometimes, someone might use ambiguous language, or some sort of novel language (there might be clearer language to get their point across but they'll decide to reinvent the wheel), and it becomes even less clear what it is that they are talking about.

Also, even depicting someone without that person's consent might not necessarily be problematic. What if someone creates a parody of a politician? In fact, people have.

I suppose I'll write a post about "AI" which I should have written but didn't.

While I don't get any joy from doing so, I do criticize people for complaining about offensive content that has been generated using some sort of diffusion model, LLM, or some other "AI" related technology. For instance, it can be annoying when someone complains about someone generating an image of Mickey Mouse holding a knife.

Mickey Mouse is one of the prime examples of copyright laws which have gone way too far. Even if you argue that copyright has merit (if someone came up with copyright today, it might be dead in the water), it was never intended to protect someone's intellectual property for anywhere near as long as it has. Content was always intended to return to the public domain after a certain amount of time had passed, so that other people would be able to make use of it.

Other than that though, it's hard to imagine how an image of Mickey Mouse holding knife "competes" with Disney's business. Is Disney selling / offering such images? Presumably, copyright is intended to offer protection from competition. And even in the framework of copyright, there is fair use which protects things like parody. So, even in that framework, it is accepted that a black and white approach to copyright is not necessarily useful.

If someone *was* to make a point, it might make more sense to point to the training process. If not, it starts to look a lot like arguing for copyright to be expanded to a dangerous degree.

Practically speaking, not having access to copyrighted content might impede the development of "AI" models. Someone might argue that that is fine but it is still a relevant point.

Other than the still missing local feed, and the looping posts, the instance seems to be working fairly well.

I've taken a break from commenting on a few civil liberties issues but I might comment on those again soon.

I think I'll have a new post out within the next few days. Probably.

The VR paragraph isn't going to be radically different. It's mainly going to be explained in more detail.

Other than that, it's going to tap into the idea that human rights are universal and human rights around artistic sexual expression.

Maybe, more things will come up which might make their way in.

If you already understand these things, it's unlikely to be a big update for you, although maybe interesting regardless, but it is an important step.

Remember that the post operates as a holistic whole, rather than being one of those posts which focuses on one particular point, so each point is useful to it.

After that, I'll see what more I can do to supplement it. It's already fairly well fleshed out though, that is part of why I'm not really in a rush to push out an update.

I mean, obviously, someone should be free to write something dark, freedom of speech, but when it comes to getting regular people to read something, that might be an obstacle.

That is also part of why I like things like Ferguson's review. It gets the point across. Someone did the analysis and wrote down the results. Or top-down overviews of crime. I don't think getting too dark really adds anything to it but it might come with a greater risk of reader attrition.

Obviously, it's impossible to make people happy all of the time, and it would make it harder to get my points across, if I did that, or to broach particular subjects, but I might as well avoid doing so superfluously.

I try to balance the vibes in the post to avoid it feeling too dark. I know there is a bit of a problem where someone might write about dark and disturbing things in an academic tone and someone might not be comfortable reading that.

One of the things I spare you when drafting posts is going through the entire two thousand year history of sex crimes involving children, which someone put in for whatever reason, so that someone can get to a potentially useful bit of information.

Now, I understand that someone might not like it when "someone from the U.N." talks about some sort of censorship, but I'm going to cite one to make the opposite point.

Something I found interesting was how they don't like being called "far right" and the like. They insist on being called "normal".

When a far right extremist Brit tries to get across how "reasonable" they are and simultaneously talks about how good it would be if all the people in Gaza were dead.

I was thinking of just introducing human rights in the next post, but you know what, I'll also cite the Special Rapporteur about artistic sexual expression.

It's been hectic over the past few weeks, and I wanted to see how people reacted to the existing science post, so I haven't written that much for a new post yet.

Mainly, I've expanded on the VR paragraph somewhat, and I've added a point about human rights.

I do avoid bringing up criminals being abused by evil doctors in the post, because otherwise I have a feeling that someone will forget that the point of the post is to fight censorship, rather than to dig into that injustice and to fight that.

Is there anything in particular which I should cover in terms of civil liberties?