AnarchoNinaWrites
Like, folks don't get it; it's not just age verification, it's not just "no porn," it's not just about predatory advertising techniques used by big tech platforms.
The bill gives the FTC (controlled by whoever is President) and State AG's (you know guys like Ken Paxton, hardcore nazis) the ability to force platforms to censor anything they *think* might cause young people "distress or anxiety."
They think trans people EXISTING causes that.
AnarchoNinaWrites
And how this is going to work is that Tech Companies are not going to wait around to get sued. They're going to take one look at how much it costs to deal with this on a case by case basis and just say "okay fuck it, ban all the queer content because it's cheaper and it's only a matter of time before some nazi parent group sues us and I've got Attorney Generals so far up my asshole I can taste their aftershave." That's how it's going to go.
AnarchoNinaWrites
So, every single platform "normal" people use the internet on, is going to build a wall around me, my content, everything I do online, to "keep kids safe" - except the result is it's going to keep anyone from seeing me or anything I publish because again, this bill is NOT ABOUT KIDS. There's no magic "this is kids" button on the internet. They're just going to do it for everyone because purely hypothetical kids MIGHT see it. And the fash are ADMITTING it's about getting trans people. OPENLY
Rich Felker
@AnarchoNinaWrites Host outside the US.
AnarchoNinaWrites
@dalias Okay but will that content still be accessible by Americans? Like I know for example in other countries with internet censorship regimes, they just block everything from outside regions that don't conform to their laws. You CAN get around those firewalls, but most people won't; so my world and ability to reach people shrinks.
AnarchoNinaWrites
@dalias I mean what is your average fedi admin going to do when they come to them and say "either take this down or we'll sue you?"
I'm pretty sure that doesn't end any differently; if anything it may mean the death of the entire platform.
Rich Felker
@AnarchoNinaWrites This is part of why we're in a race to destroy "tech companies'" platforms and replace them with something they can't control.
The fediverse is a step along that path, but nowhere near far enough.
And the space of ideas that do go far enough is full of coinbro brainworms, freeze peach nazis, and other similar garbage displacing and discrediting anyone who actually cares about building the future.
Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
Rich Felker
@lanodan @AnarchoNinaWrites Is ChatControl relevant to platforms that are public not e2ee channels?
Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
Rich Felker
@lanodan @AnarchoNinaWrites BTW this is one of the reasons I'm big on "remove DMs from Mastodon entirely, don't try to add e2ee". By being a public-only venue, you're immune to a whole regulatory regime targeted at private interpersonal communication. Let experts in that, with the technological, legal, or jurisdictional resources to protect e2ee, handle that.
Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
Rich Felker
@lanodan @AnarchoNinaWrites Yes, another big problem with doing DMs is that there's no privacy-respecting way to reconcile it with moderation. The only winning move is really not to play.
If you have a platform where people interact with others they don't know and trust and have their own full control over who can contact them and how, don't let people create things on your platform that isn't not ethical for mods to look at.
Green Roc Thoughts
@AnarchoNinaWrites I thought the parents were supposed to watch what their kids watch online.
I do not approve of these walled gardens cropping up and blocking my view because someone else decided the internet needs to be someone else's parent.
IN OTHER WORDS,
I dont like someone else's values forced upon me because someone else decided not to parent their own kids.
I'm an adult. I'm not against trans. I have trans friends and trans family.
Doesnt feel like freedom, feels like dictatorship.
Frances Larina
It will affect *everyone*. Tech companies have for years tried to force every user to have to positively identify themselves.
Data brokers love it because each individual will be tracked, always. Fascists love it because there can be no anonymous dissent.
Edwardo Lobo
One thing I try to do with, I don't know let's call them, normies, is to just appeal to their self-interest.
Like you got to know the fascists aren't going to stop with the trans people, that's just the people WE decided were acceptable to sacrifice for our comfort.
The reason you need to fight for trans people, even if you aren't trans, even if you're bigoted against trans people, is because they're going to get to you eventually.
Appealing to people's humanity is sadly less effective.
Rich Felker
@AnarchoNinaWrites KOSA isn't structured as an internal censorship regime even though that's the purpose. It's structured to place burden on entities under US law to make them "voluntarily" censor. But "block foreign websites" would be a huge additional legal (1A) hurdle they'd have a harder time passing than KOSA.
Rich Felker
@Life_is @lanodan @AnarchoNinaWrites I did not. ChatControl was brought up, not by me, in the context of whether it would be a counterindication for hosting Mastodon/fedi instances in EU. Not as a prompt for answering some random different question about it.
C.Suthorn :prn:
You introduced ChatControl into the thread (and you actually coined it into a question). Yes, this is a different aspect. But it has consequences for public communication.
If you do not like my contribution, just ignore me.
Whatever the supporters of ChatControl say or actually intend: ChatControl has universal consequences and does not differentiate between private and public, between ee2e, encrypted, weak encrypted or not encrypted at all, as it is deep embedded into every communication device.
Rich Felker
@Life_is @lanodan @AnarchoNinaWrites I was asking about what legal requirements would be imposed on a communication channel where everything is public, and you seem to be answering a completely different question about technical threats to private channels from proposed backdoor software.
C.Suthorn :prn:
@dalias @lanodan @AnarchoNinaWrites
ChatControl is relevant to Web Browsers and OSs. You May be able to circumvent ChatControl on your local Maschine, you May even be able to outsmart ChatControl when you use the Internet to communicate with a Person you personally know. But once you communicate with anyone and have not absolut control about the OS they use, you get exposed to it.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.