Olives @olives@social.cleverlibre.org

"volume" "frequency" Any measures would be very burdensome for a provider (and could even be used in a harassing manner on a flimsy basis).

Even more so when there are multiple layers of providers involved, as this can incur great technical obstacles.

That's sort of a guardrail, though not a perfect one.

It looks like the usual authoritarians who want to control the Internet are now hiring minors to say good things about their ideology... Ugh.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/30/julian-assanges-brother-urges-anthony-albanese-to-up-the-ante-over-wikileaks-founders-case Do you remember Assange?

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/31/hundreds-of-millions-of-australian-identity-checks-may-have-been-illegally-conducted-senate-hears

"Hundreds of millions of identity checks under the federal government’s ID verification service may have been illegally conducted, with the Albanese government rushing through legislation to underpin the service.

Identity verification services are used by government departments and businesses – such as credit card providers and power companies – to combat fraud and identity theft.

Legislation to allow the identity verification service was abandoned by the former Morrison government in 2019 after the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security recommended it be redrafted over concerns there were insufficient privacy safeguards for the proposal.

However, the service began operating and, four years on, the Albanese government has pushed through new legislation in the House of Representatives. It is now under review in the Senate."

https://theintercept.com/2023/10/28/instagram-palestinian-flag-emoji/ This is kind of inevitable when someone is just demanding platforms to "do more".

https://www.stopfinancialsurveillance.org/

"Two years after the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) passed amidst backlash from the public, the US Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are proposing regulation for its implementation that would mandate mass surveillance of digital assets. This is likely unconstitutional and would be a massive blow to human rights.

We have until November 14 to speak out on the danger of this proposed rule."

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/10/30/british-police-testing-women-for-abortion-drugs/ Huh, I didn't think the U.K. was *that* kind of country.

Also, looking back, television was actually really bad for free expression. I don't think you realize quite how much censorship goes into it (unless, you're a censorship wonk like me who spends a fair bit of time looking into it). It would be very stifling and very unpleasant.

Some of the takes from the worst people can be pretty crazy. For instance, at times, one practically suggested they wanted a fully moderated social network (both economically and practically impossible). That you could have mods watching every video. Every livestream. To make sure no one is doing anything improper. Just like the "days of television". If they couldn't do that, the site deserved to just be shut down. It's too risky.

"Ylva can't be allowed to get away with this."

I think she is another case where she knows very well what she's doing. She doesn't really care about your rights, and wants to achieve whatever aims she wants to.

She will mislead, outright lie, strategically ignore, and "keep happening upon" things which "appear" to support her (but are quite dubious and bad faith in their own ways.

Someone asked whether she is evil or stupid, but if you treat her as if she is merely stupid, she is going to take you for a ride, as will similar kinds of people.

And yes, you can't let her get away with using these kinds of antics. She's not the worst actor. Some of these shills / lobbyists are worse than she is, however, she is the bad actor with the most power.

I also wonder what'll happen after Ylva retires as commissioner. Is she going to appear on the board of a government backed lobby group? The revolving door kind of is a thing.

The usual suspects are either ignoring (or haven't noticed, though that might be giving them too much credit) this study which would appear to question whether control is a good thing.

https://reason.com/2023/10/30/brickbat-tiny-homes-big-problems/

"In March, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the state would spend $30 million to build 1,200 prefabricated tiny houses across the state, including 350 in Sacramento, in an effort to ease the state's housing shortage. He promised the houses would be ready this fall. But local media in Sacramento report the state still has not hired contractors for the project in that city, much less broken ground on any of the houses."

The really interesting thing here is that someone will probably always be able to do whatever they want with a home-brew "AI" tool (whether they like it or not) but they have this fantasy of control (which involves whipping good actors).

On occasion, they might try to create a pseudo-intellectual air, though their arguments tend to verge on the conspiratorial.

Things like trying to associate something with "deviants" someone couldn't possibly understand, with high levels of paranoia, and outright ignoring the obvious negative implications of their actions (and sometimes trying to spin this as a "good thing" to try to take the bad taste out of someone's mouth).

Vague, tangential, and unbounded speculation with language like "maybe" and "possibly" becomes a "gold standard". Any evidence (no matter how solid it is) to the contrary might as well not exist.

There are many reasons why it's hard to take anything they say seriously.

AI, VR, fiction, taboos, and more.

One of the most important points:

"When I say that debunking things takes time and resources, I really do mean that, as can be evidenced by this very post. Frankly, I'm of the opinion these people tend to be bad faith actors, and know damn well they're talking crap. People should stop letting them get away with it."

The reason here is really quite simple.

They plug their ears to censorship not being useful, and actually, harmful, and go out of their way to conflate concepts, and even to instruct others on how to do so.

Ironically, I didn't use the prison analogy because of the penal colony history, it's just a very useful analogy.