Jag vill poängtera att det inte är ett ”kritiserat förslag mot barnporr som stoppas”. Det är ett kritiserat massövervakningsförslag som bryter mot Barnkonventionen som tillfälligt ser ut att kunna förhindras.
The #EU has been making a lot of bad decisions recently (#eIDAS#ChatControl, #CyberResilienceAct and others...) in particular when it comes to the open source community.
I've been working in the institutions for two years and am considering launching a wiki to explain how to better influence EU decision making, would this interest anyone?
EDIT: I somehow managed to make the poll 5 minutes, sorry!
🇬🇧Why is Ireland the most vocal defender of #chatcontrol in Council whereas its own Parliament's Justice Committee issued a damning opinion about the file?
I join fellow MEPs calling attention to this as the EU Parliament overhauled the approach last week.
🇩🇪#Chatkontrolle: Die spanische Ratspräsidentschaft hat es wohl aufgegeben, dieses Jahr noch eine Mehrheit für die Zerstörung des digitalen Briefgeheimnisses und sicherer Verschlüsselung finden zu wollen. Netzpolitik.org treffend: "Die spanische Ratspräsidentschaft führt Einzelgespräche mit den kritischen Staaten. Nur zu einem scheinen sie nicht bereit: einen Vorschlag zu machen, der legal und verhältnismäßig ist." https://netzpolitik.org/2023/internes-protokoll-immer-mehr-eu-staaten-gegen-unverhaeltnismaessige-chatkontrolle/
Nächstes Jahr übernimmt Belgien die Ratspräsidentschaft und wird den Gesetzentwurf sicherlich voran treiben.
🇬🇧#ChatControl: The Spanish Council Presidency seems to have given up trying to find a majority for destroying digital privacy of correspondence and secure encryption this year. Netzpolitik.org publishes the positions of Member States and comments: "The Spanish Council Presidency is speaking bilaterally to critical Member States. There is only one thing they don't seem willing to do: make a proposal that is legal and proportionate." https://netzpolitik.org/2023/internes-protokoll-immer-mehr-eu-staaten-gegen-unverhaeltnismaessige-chatkontrolle/
Belgium will take over the Council Presidency next year and will certainly pursue the bill.
"To już oficjalne: Parlament Europejski chce powstrzymać #ChatControl i bronić bezpiecznego szyfrowania! Wczoraj minął termin zgłaszania sprzeciwów wobec niemal jednogłośnego stanowiska LIBE"
LIBE to Komisja Wolności Obywatelskich, Sprawiedliwości i Spraw Wewnętrznych Parlamentu Europejskiego 🇪🇺
The notes and accounts from the FediForum in late September suggest that some of "the people who move the fediverse forward", as the conference promotes itself as platforming, are also acutely interested in moving forward the agenda of Meta.
The forum's notes tell the tale. Though a number of topics, including many of genuine benefit, were touched upon, digging through the sessions turns up a path of breadcrumbs that leads straight back to Palo Alto.
The centralization scheme is being developed in partnership with an entity called Thorn - a for-profit "AI" surveillance privateer which pretends to be a "for the children" NGO. Thorn is hot news lately due to its blatantly corrupt involvement in the EU Chat Control plot, which would destroy the free internet and online privacy in Europe but create a huge business opportunity for Thorn.
I see the "age verification" language now (or that posted on social media), it doesn't seem to cover porn containing sites per se (although, maybe someone could twist it against them, i.e. like Germany seemed to). It is a... worrying one to have on principle, even if it is used in far fewer cases, as it is an inherently privacy intrusive measure (and might even practically prevent someone being able to access content...). In practice, it might wind up turning into de facto blocks in a lot of cases, like with Germany.
That said, I see how it might've made a tempting compromise... Ugh...
I suppose if a puritan shows up, there is this:
Firstly, even if online porn "might" be "problematic" to someone out there, it would still not be anywhere remotely near proportionate to engage in censorship, or privacy intrusive measures. Especially, as it can be important free expression to someone.
Secondly, a typical recommendation is sex education, not censorship (which is harmful in it's own ways).
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 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://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.
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 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).
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). If it was 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.
Reminder that if you live in the EU, you should spend 5 minutes today to write your MEPs asking them to oppose a disastrous plan to undermine web security.
Copy & pasteable form letter in link.
We beat EU #chatControl because people took action in mass. This is even worse.
Todos os dias uma razão para rejeitar o #ChatControl e só paramos quando for derrotado:
A Autoridade Europeia para a Proteção de Dados afirma que o #ChatControl prejudica severamente pessoas inocentes, com pouca ou nenhuma evidência de que possa proteger as crianças.