Olives @olives@social.cleverlibre.org

@trinsec All the better, lol.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/13/facebook-incorrectly-removes-picture-of-aboriginal-men-in-chains-because-of-nudity
Here's a classic. Facebook censors a news article because it contains "nudity" but has important political commentary.

This game was banned by the Australian Classification Board, because it "contains drugs", until the ban was reversed a month? later.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/17/free-the-nipple-meta-facebook-instagram I never understood why Facebook is so scared of boobs...

https://reclaimthenet.org/saudi-arabia-reminds-social-media-users-that-criticism-of-the-regime-is-illegal Not good.

https://www.raadvanstate.nl/actueel/nieuws/juni/samenvatting-strafbaar-kindersekspoppen
Right wing echoes much? That's very much a bad idea.

It's just going to pit some people and make them suffer horribly. They're not all demons who want to exploit someone. This is not just.

It is also nebulously vague, sets a dangerous precedent, and is a threat to freedom of expression far more broadly.

We should be looking to expand the frontiers of free expression, not looking to constrain it.

Do you enjoy playing video games which contain a character using drugs or references thereof?

Well, it sucks to be you, because the nanny board is going to show up whenever it feels like it to give you a very hard day.

That's not what they're doing in this case. It's an example of how annoying they can be.

The infamous Australian Classification Board, Karens and nannies to an degree thought unimaginable, has convened again to determine whether Gender Queer should be banned.

It says it right in my bio. I'm a huge fan of free expression.

@mmasnick We don't really know the context.

It might be content which wasn't caught, that is very plausible. It might be content which was reviewed and isn't actionable.

But, I'm not fond of the precedent of running around blind with an algorithm and pointing fingers at random companies.

https://reclaimthenet.org/two-democrats-want-to-ban-facial-scanning-in-public-housing Sounds reasonable.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/06/victory-new-jersey-court-rules-police-must-give-defendant-facial-recognition That is the only right thing to do, otherwise someone could convict someone on shoddy "evidence" without a chance to challenge it.

@mmasnick This isn't really to defend the Musk in particular, but if dodgy evidence becomes the "standard" for gauging sites, that is a pretty dark road to go down.

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/07/research-shows-twitter-was-missing-known-child-sex-abuse-material/
Btw, this algorithm has an error rate (one advocate of it claims it works "99% of the time") and these people didn't check (to avoid being held legally liable).

This doesn't really tell me anything. A bit of a leap, @mmasnick?

It also appears one person cited in another article was appointed by the populist leader of what could be called Australia's right-wing and conspiracy ridden Jesus Party, and that she's made appearances on the podcast of an infamous Utah-based anti-porn group (which is staffed by lots of anti-LGBT figures and claimed being gay leads to mass murder).

One of her advisors is infamous for trying to misrepresent legitimate content as "CSAM" (he is also strangely fixated on "ritual abuse" and panders to populism). So, I'm going to say I'm sceptical of her too.

The former Prime Minister made an appearance before the Parliament to claim schools contain satanic ritual abuse (a long debunked conspiracy theory) and his best friend believes in the Q conspiracy theory.

@ceoln @LouisIngenthron Strong "please invest in me" energy.

Maybe, "please ban my competitors, only I can be trusted" energy too.

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/06/possible-reasons-why-youtube-has-given-up-trying-to-police-2020-election-misinfo/ Like Covid on another site (I don't know how they handle that), it's probably old and irrelevant, and enforcing a policy takes a certain toll.

@freemo @GeePawHill @agilealliance "male / female impersonation" being defined as "adult content" which minors shouldn't see means that someone could harass / arrest someone simply for walking around.

I've seen this in some states. On the upside, this is certainly a violation of the First Amendment which protects free expression.

That might be one. Also, rhetoric / laws from politicians might make people feel unsafe, in general.

https://reason.com/2023/06/02/he-spent-a-decade-in-jail-without-being-convicted-now-his-lawyer-says-his-case-should-be-dismissed/ Man spent a decade in jail awaiting trial and having not been convicted yet.

https://reason.com/2023/06/03/ugandas-new-anti-gay-law-could-undermine-aids-prevention/ This law is so crazy.