Live data from Hacker News

The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

mastodon.online

291–300 of 300 posts

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#291
It was not that long ago, that most countries regulated products, communications, food, and many other things, even arms & munitions, very, very lightly. In the UK in 1903, a law was passed prohibiting the sale of pistols to children. The UK is a country where adults who have served in the military have a hard time buying a pistol today.

From 1900 onwards, the scope of safety regulation greatly expanded, and the state apparatus necessary to make that regulation stick also expanded. Different countries have gone in different directions with it. The US has a lot less safety than many other countries, but our regulations and regulatory apparatus greatly expanded, too. It's easy to sell safety to voters and with improving technology and information systems, more and more safety was possible.

We are probably approaching a local maxima of some kind in our approach to safety; or maybe we just suffer from a maniacal focus on it. Legislators are ever more willing to set aside the fundamental rights in the name of protecting the vulnerable from harm.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#292
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These should be enshrined into law... and there needs to be some sort of rule to prevent lawmakers from trying to ram through laws with the same spirit without some sort of cool down period. The fact that lawmakers have tried to push the same crap multiple times in the last 4 years despite a ton of opposition and resistance is ridiculous.

People need to do a better job of voting out people who push such laws.

How would anyone be voted out in the EU?

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anything can be bad in "certain circumstances" Can it? In the same way? It feels like your argument comes down to handwaving. Circumstantial law is hardly a novel thing.

> Can it? In the same way? It feels like your argument comes down to handwaving. Circumstantial law is hardly a novel thing. I think that was their point: your argument seems handwavey, because anything can be bad "in certain circumstances". Hold the door for someone? Seems nice. But you could be insulting them by doing so. Or letting a virus in by having the door open too long. Or wasting energy and contributing to…

Sure, many things can be "bad" if you are happy to go with increasingly absurd reasoning, but I Think that's quite an unfair misrepresentation of both what I said above and of the arguments that were raised in parliament before this law was introduced. Insulting someone by holding a door open might be "bad" but could you really argue for legislating against it? Bringing in the word bad moves the goalposts quite a bit in order to frame the original position as equally limp and absurd.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#294
post #153

The problem with "child abuse" is that some countries classify drawing things as "child abuse," or "rape," or "animal abuse." (Something I don't agree with.) I mentioned in another thread a few weeks back that I got raided by the British police last February for "uploading/downloading "illegal" anime artwork on one of the (anime) artwork websites we're criminally investigating." (Yes, the British police are criminall…

It is concerning to me that there are now international (Western ?) guidelines[1] (2016) and conventions that don't seem to realise the consequences of taking a hard stance on the combination of three of their points :

- a child is any person under the age of 18 years

- including non-explicit sexual activities

- any material that visually depicts a child [engaged in those]

Am I missing something, or have they 'criminalised' a quite large chunk of art ?!?

[1] https://ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Terminology-gui...

Then we have these guidelines embedded in automated systems (sometimes with people as 'cogs'), add a pinch of pressure by puritans in power of various stripes, and a decade later we end up with payment networks forcing platforms to kick out artists even when what they are doing is not illegal in their respective jurisdictions !

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#295
post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're of the opinion that drawing children having sex (assuming again) shouldn't be illegal, you should be lobbying/advocating for that position. Changing the compromise. Otherwise you're, like me driving too fast, at the mercy of the justice system. That only makes sense if your general stance to everything is "forbidden unless explicitly permitted". I hope I don't have to say why that sounds oppressive. There…

> That only makes sense if your general stance to everything is "forbidden unless explicitly permitted" Not at all. The UK, just as an example, explicitly bans images (as opposed to photographs, which are covered under different law) of children that are pornographic and obscene. That is, by legal professionals, interpreted as including manga, comics, and CGI. You do not need some universal "default position" to unde…

Whether such laws already exist or not was not my point. The problem is that such laws are overreaching in nature.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#296
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it makes a lot of sense. It likely encourages pedophilia, meaning people that consume such things will often adopt a wrong idea of what's okay. It's similar to the way that regular porn affects the brain. I understand where you're coming from, though and I get your point, but I feel if someone consumes a lot of media of a certain type, they begin to 'embody' that media. Just don't goon.

Ah, yes, the gateway drug trope. Always a good one for asserting control indirectly. Inevitably results in increased profits for the purveyors of the gateway drug and no reduction in demand or consumption. Prosecutors and jailors get richer too. Follow the money.

Ah yes, the gateway drug straw man. Poster didn't say it causes that consequence, just that it normalises it. Just like video games normalise violence, gay porn normalises being gay etc. Doesn't mean it should be banned, but it does shift the winds about what is acceptable. And that is a worthy discussion when it comes to images of child exploitation.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#297
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, yes, the gateway drug trope. Always a good one for asserting control indirectly. Inevitably results in increased profits for the purveyors of the gateway drug and no reduction in demand or consumption. Prosecutors and jailors get richer too. Follow the money.

Ah yes, the gateway drug straw man. Poster didn't say it causes that consequence, just that it normalises it. Just like video games normalise violence, gay porn normalises being gay etc. Doesn't mean it should be banned, but it does shift the winds about what is acceptable. And that is a worthy discussion when it comes to images of child exploitation.

Normalizes vs causes is a vacuous distinction here, and both of your examples deserve some proof that there's any difference

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it really depends on what kind of anime you’re talking about. Like if you’re watching one piece fan art and the British police raided you, absolutely ridiculous. If you’re looking at naked artistic depictions of minors then it’s clearly not just “anime artwork”. BTW I’m not saying that someone who looks at that should be treated the same way as someone who harms a child but I’m just saying the cultural accept…

> I think it really depends on what kind of anime you’re talking about Does it? If I draw a naked stick figure with boobs and say it is 14, is that morally wrong? At what point should a person care? Their point is that a drawing doesn't hurt people right?

Just because it’s hard to spot the point where it becomes immoral doesn’t mean it’s not immoral. I can’t tell you at what point a person should care, and I wouldn’t want to be the judge of that. My point is that saying they’re looking at “anime” is really downplaying what’s happening. I don’t personally believe the drawings we’re referring to hurt anyone, but that had nothing to do with my argument anyway. Many people will be disgusted by it, and others will not, meanwhile most people seem to be okay with mainstream anime.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#299
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this as "It's perfectly fine to persecute people for their art". And boy, you're on the wrong side of history.

There are all kinds of things you might qualify as "art" which are forbidden in my country (France) - for example if your "art" is about drawing nazi symbols you hopefully are going to have troubles - and I don't have a problem with having pedophile content in that list.

Does france really prosecute people for only showing nazi symbols, independent of context? So for example, documentary series are forbidden?

To be clear, I still stand by what I said, but I don't think it's fair to equate "pedophile art" with nazi symbology. What I said is meant to be taken as a powerful but general rule that cautions against restricting art (and thus, restricting thought and expression) on the basis of fuzzy logic, hatred towards the content, racism, or any other sort of bias not supported by reality. In this regard, I don't think the logic behind restricting "pedophile art" has the same weight as the logic behind restricting nazi symbology (not even close).

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#300
post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the gateway drug straw man. Poster didn't say it causes that consequence, just that it normalises it. Just like video games normalise violence, gay porn normalises being gay etc. Doesn't mean it should be banned, but it does shift the winds about what is acceptable. And that is a worthy discussion when it comes to images of child exploitation.

Normalizes vs causes is a vacuous distinction here, and both of your examples deserve some proof that there's any difference

What's to explain? Seeing gay porn doesn't increase the number of gay people but can let gay people feel less abnormal. If cause equaled normalisation they would be synonymous.
Post reply on HN