4 ms·

The people pushing for "child protection" went to the island. It's not even about control, it's about shifting liability away from platforms so they can further

by jjk166 7mo ago

The people pushing for "child protection" went to the island. It's not even about control, it's about shifting liability away from platforms so they can further gut moderation, reducing their expenses and getting away with doing nothing to stop the actual bad actors.

cyanydeez 7mo ago
I mean sure; but look at it from their POV, controlling the medium is the message right from 1984. Like LLMs, you can't learn about doing evil things without seeing how they benefit yourself.
gruez 7mo ago
>The people pushing for "child protection" went to the island. What does this even mean aside from a thinly veiled accusation that such efforts are being pushed by a shadowy cabal of pedophiles elites? I'm sure you can find some overlap between people who want to push age verification laws and people who went to the island, but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go?
- afh1 7mo ago
  Those are just stupid.
- girvo 7mo ago
  > shadowy cabal of pedophiles elites Its a shame that this used to just be a conspiracy theory one could mostly ignore, but we simply can't pretend that there isn't rampant CSA by those in power, because we've had proof of it despite their best efforts. Without wanting to get into politics, the leader of the United States right now was friends with the supposed ring-leader... > but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go? Useful idiots, perhaps? Wanting to protect their own power and gain more? It's certainly not actually about protecting children. Never has been.
  - pipes 7mo ago
    I might be misreading you, but are you saying that the whole Qanon thing isn't a baseless conspiracy theory?
    - girvo 7mo ago
      Qanon is absolutely a baseless conspiracy theory. The overall idea that far too many of those in power politically and economically are involved in CSA isn't though, it seems.
      - Dylan16807 7mo ago
        The threshold for "far too many" is like, a single digit number. It's an extremely weak claim. Even if those in power were half as likely to be involved as the average adult, that would still be far too many.
  - Tarq0n 7mo ago
    I don't like the "those in power" framing because it implies that they all participated and that such a homogenous group even exists.
    - smallmancontrov 7mo ago
      Yes, and many people have an extreme incentive to retreat to that framing because * In 2024, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. * In 2020, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. * In 2016, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. There was plenty of evidence of this association in 2016 (bragging about creeping into Ms Teen USA dressing rooms, bragging about being Epstein's best friend in the same sentence as acknowledging he's a pedo, victim testimony under oath that he diddled kids, etc etc), so "I didn't know" isn't an excuse if they cared one iota about the children at any step of the way. It should be good news that the powerful pedophiles are largely (but not exclusively) concentrated in one party, but those who put them in power will do anything to avoid admitting culpability.
- smallmancontrov 7mo ago
  I don't know the precise combination of stupidity vs evil that compelled the "think of the children" crowd to choose the single most publicly implicated man in the Epstein scandal as their champion and elect him over someone who wasn't and hasn't been implicated at all in the slightest, but they did. Either way, they receive the culpability for doing so and we should expect their future decision making to be equally compromised.
- catapart 7mo ago
  Like who? Name some names of people pushing for this, and we can dissect their motivation.
  - gruez 7mo ago
    How about the first country to ban social media for kids, Australia[1]? So far as I can tell the PM/party leader was not in the files. Of course, if you make your inclusion criteria absurdly wide (eg. anyone who voted or advocated for age based restrictions in any shape or form), you'll probably find some pedophiles or even epstien island visitors from sheer luck alone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment_(Social_Media_Minimum_Age)_Act_2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment_(Socia...
    - bigfatkitten 7mo ago
      This has been on Labor’s agenda, in various forms for many years. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/government-abandons-plans-for-internet-filter/4362354 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/government-abandons-p...
      - gruez 7mo ago
        That doesn't change the conclusion, unless you're trying to imply the entire party is full of pedophiles.
        scotty79 7mo ago
        At this point the burden of proof is on the party. Benefit of the doubt has ran out.
        gruez 7mo ago
        >Benefit of the doubt has ran out ...because they're pushing age verification legislation? Did I miss some massive Labor pedophile scandal? If not, this just feels like a tautology. Labor is only pushing age verification because they're pedophiles, and they're pedophiles because they're pushing age verification. Moreover even if we ignore that, what does that mean for the rest of their platform items? If Labor is pro net-zero, is it fair to characterize the situation as "the people pushing for net-zero are pedophiles"?
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- micromacrofoot 7mo ago
  you mean the guys who are working alongside a bunch of pedophiles and doing little about it?
- aga98mtl 7mo ago
  > but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go? Who exactly is influential & organized enough across many western countries to push legislation that no one is asking for? Notice that epstein said he worked for [withheld] in some of his emails.
  - gruez 7mo ago
    >Who exactly is influential & organized enough across many western countries to push legislation that no one is asking for? The anti-social media sentiment has been brewing for a while now, not least due to books like The Anxious Generation (2024). It's also reflected in opinion polls and media coverage. Unless you want to imply there's some massive conspiracy by The Elites™ (ie. not just a few lobbyists Meta hired, but those in academia and media as well), it's probably organic.
- maweaver 7mo ago
  It means that especially those who went to the island but also most of the others don't care about protecting children. They merely see a way to consolidate power and are jumping on it.
mpalmer 7mo ago
It's mostly Meta lobbying for this, in every state. Sensationalizing and exaggerating does not help.
- hunterpayne 7mo ago
  But why is Meta lobbying for this? The bills they push move compliance onto the app stores. And Meta doesn't run an app store. I think the execs think its some sort of 4D chess move to put liabilities onto their competitors. I'm not sure it will work out that way. Seems like FB has a lot more to lose than they think.
  - gruez 7mo ago
    > I'm not sure it will work out that way. why? If age restriction get legislated into the OS, it puts a damper on further attempts on adding restrictions to sites, because they can point to the existing legislation and claim it's enough.
    - heavyset_go 7mo ago
      This is like saying, well they passed a new 5% tax, and if they try further attempts at adding more taxes, they can point to the existing legislation and claim it's enough. COPPA already exists and they're insisting that it's not enough.
  - Scandiravian 7mo ago
    They're pushing for an API at the system level, where they can query the age Such an API can then be extended to provide location data to "help the police find bad guys", track purchase histories to "prevent fraud"; all the stuff that Apple and Google blocked fb from sniffing from user devices It's circumvention of these privacy protections with added vengeance since now Google and Apple will be sitting with the cost of implementation and the liability
    - gruez 7mo ago
      >Such an API can then be extended to provide location data to "help the police find bad guys", track purchase histories to "prevent fraud"; all the stuff that Apple and Google blocked fb from sniffing from user devices /s? In case this is serious, why do they need an age API to ask for a location backdoor API?
Velocifyer 7mo ago
Which island?
- wetpaws 7mo ago
  [dead]
- jadamson 7mo ago
  Little St. James
- nssnsjsjsjs 7mo ago
  Epstein's most likely.
wakawaka28 7mo ago
It's not about gutting moderation. They want you to dox yourself to get online. It's a pro-censorship authoritarian-friendly move. I don't believe the narrative that Meta is behind it all either. If they are, they are probably serving someone else.
- echelon 7mo ago
  Here are just some of the things you can do with tracking: - Dox, coerce, blackmail, and ruin political candidates, powerful CEOs, and wealthy people. If they watch a category of porn that is embarrassing or have an affair, suddenly you have leverage against them. You can parlay that to accomplish lots of things. - Make it impossible to talk about certain things and eventually eliminate those things. Porn today, abortion tomorrow. LGBT, women's rights ... it's a tool to start enforcing an ideology. Eventually these things can be disappeared entirely, not just the discourse. You just cordon off and begin washing it away bit by bit, year by year. Once the control mechanisms are in place, it cannot be stopped. - Kill anonymous communication. This can pin identities to online comments. You can then punish people of the ideology you don't like by denying them jobs, auditing them, etc. This has a chilling effect on political opposition. This also makes it much harder to leak or report information safely and harms the ability to whistle blow. - In general, this also pushes society into more religious, more conservative views. With it comes a lack of skepticism and a greater appreciation for authority. - Ultimately, this is a step into 1984. If we go down that route, we will eventually be owned in whole by the authoritarian powers at top. This entire conversation will be memory holed. Once a right is lost, we will not get it back. Then it's just one step after another into hell. We must fight this. Our lives, our freedom, our future - depend on it.
  - scotty79 7mo ago
    > ruin political candidates, powerful CEOs, and wealthy people This is mostly fantasy propagated by works of fiction. In the real world release of any evidence of sins has practically zero impact on the wealthy people and when it very occasionally does have an impact it just happens in cases of people who weren't wealthy enough for the circumstances.

by jjk166 7mo ago

cyanydeez 7mo ago

I mean sure; but look at it from their POV, controlling the medium is the message right from 1984. Like LLMs, you can't learn about doing evil things without seeing how they benefit yourself.

gruez 7mo ago

>The people pushing for "child protection" went to the island. What does this even mean aside from a thinly veiled accusation that such efforts are being pushed by a shadowy cabal of pedophiles elites? I'm sure you can find some overlap between people who want to push age verification laws and people who went to the island, but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go?

afh1 7mo ago
Those are just stupid.
girvo 7mo ago
> shadowy cabal of pedophiles elites Its a shame that this used to just be a conspiracy theory one could mostly ignore, but we simply can't pretend that there isn't rampant CSA by those in power, because we've had proof of it despite their best efforts. Without wanting to get into politics, the leader of the United States right now was friends with the supposed ring-leader... > but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go? Useful idiots, perhaps? Wanting to protect their own power and gain more? It's certainly not actually about protecting children. Never has been.
- pipes 7mo ago
  I might be misreading you, but are you saying that the whole Qanon thing isn't a baseless conspiracy theory?
  - girvo 7mo ago
    Qanon is absolutely a baseless conspiracy theory. The overall idea that far too many of those in power politically and economically are involved in CSA isn't though, it seems.
    - Dylan16807 7mo ago
      The threshold for "far too many" is like, a single digit number. It's an extremely weak claim. Even if those in power were half as likely to be involved as the average adult, that would still be far too many.
- Tarq0n 7mo ago
  I don't like the "those in power" framing because it implies that they all participated and that such a homogenous group even exists.
  - smallmancontrov 7mo ago
    Yes, and many people have an extreme incentive to retreat to that framing because * In 2024, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. * In 2020, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. * In 2016, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. There was plenty of evidence of this association in 2016 (bragging about creeping into Ms Teen USA dressing rooms, bragging about being Epstein's best friend in the same sentence as acknowledging he's a pedo, victim testimony under oath that he diddled kids, etc etc), so "I didn't know" isn't an excuse if they cared one iota about the children at any step of the way. It should be good news that the powerful pedophiles are largely (but not exclusively) concentrated in one party, but those who put them in power will do anything to avoid admitting culpability.
smallmancontrov 7mo ago
I don't know the precise combination of stupidity vs evil that compelled the "think of the children" crowd to choose the single most publicly implicated man in the Epstein scandal as their champion and elect him over someone who wasn't and hasn't been implicated at all in the slightest, but they did. Either way, they receive the culpability for doing so and we should expect their future decision making to be equally compromised.
catapart 7mo ago
Like who? Name some names of people pushing for this, and we can dissect their motivation.
- gruez 7mo ago
  How about the first country to ban social media for kids, Australia[1]? So far as I can tell the PM/party leader was not in the files. Of course, if you make your inclusion criteria absurdly wide (eg. anyone who voted or advocated for age based restrictions in any shape or form), you'll probably find some pedophiles or even epstien island visitors from sheer luck alone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment_(Social_Media_Minimum_Age)_Act_2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment_(Socia...
  - bigfatkitten 7mo ago
    This has been on Labor’s agenda, in various forms for many years. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/government-abandons-plans-for-internet-filter/4362354 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/government-abandons-p...
    - gruez 7mo ago
      That doesn't change the conclusion, unless you're trying to imply the entire party is full of pedophiles.
      - scotty79 7mo ago
        At this point the burden of proof is on the party. Benefit of the doubt has ran out.
        gruez 7mo ago
        >Benefit of the doubt has ran out ...because they're pushing age verification legislation? Did I miss some massive Labor pedophile scandal? If not, this just feels like a tautology. Labor is only pushing age verification because they're pedophiles, and they're pedophiles because they're pushing age verification. Moreover even if we ignore that, what does that mean for the rest of their platform items? If Labor is pro net-zero, is it fair to characterize the situation as "the people pushing for net-zero are pedophiles"?
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
micromacrofoot 7mo ago
you mean the guys who are working alongside a bunch of pedophiles and doing little about it?
aga98mtl 7mo ago
> but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go? Who exactly is influential & organized enough across many western countries to push legislation that no one is asking for? Notice that epstein said he worked for [withheld] in some of his emails.
- gruez 7mo ago
  >Who exactly is influential & organized enough across many western countries to push legislation that no one is asking for? The anti-social media sentiment has been brewing for a while now, not least due to books like The Anxious Generation (2024). It's also reflected in opinion polls and media coverage. Unless you want to imply there's some massive conspiracy by The Elites™ (ie. not just a few lobbyists Meta hired, but those in academia and media as well), it's probably organic.
maweaver 7mo ago
It means that especially those who went to the island but also most of the others don't care about protecting children. They merely see a way to consolidate power and are jumping on it.

mpalmer 7mo ago

It's mostly Meta lobbying for this, in every state. Sensationalizing and exaggerating does not help.

hunterpayne 7mo ago
But why is Meta lobbying for this? The bills they push move compliance onto the app stores. And Meta doesn't run an app store. I think the execs think its some sort of 4D chess move to put liabilities onto their competitors. I'm not sure it will work out that way. Seems like FB has a lot more to lose than they think.
- gruez 7mo ago
  > I'm not sure it will work out that way. why? If age restriction get legislated into the OS, it puts a damper on further attempts on adding restrictions to sites, because they can point to the existing legislation and claim it's enough.
  - heavyset_go 7mo ago
    This is like saying, well they passed a new 5% tax, and if they try further attempts at adding more taxes, they can point to the existing legislation and claim it's enough. COPPA already exists and they're insisting that it's not enough.
- Scandiravian 7mo ago
  They're pushing for an API at the system level, where they can query the age Such an API can then be extended to provide location data to "help the police find bad guys", track purchase histories to "prevent fraud"; all the stuff that Apple and Google blocked fb from sniffing from user devices It's circumvention of these privacy protections with added vengeance since now Google and Apple will be sitting with the cost of implementation and the liability
  - gruez 7mo ago
    >Such an API can then be extended to provide location data to "help the police find bad guys", track purchase histories to "prevent fraud"; all the stuff that Apple and Google blocked fb from sniffing from user devices /s? In case this is serious, why do they need an age API to ask for a location backdoor API?

Velocifyer 7mo ago

Which island?

wetpaws 7mo ago
[dead]
jadamson 7mo ago
Little St. James
nssnsjsjsjs 7mo ago
Epstein's most likely.

wakawaka28 7mo ago

It's not about gutting moderation. They want you to dox yourself to get online. It's a pro-censorship authoritarian-friendly move. I don't believe the narrative that Meta is behind it all either. If they are, they are probably serving someone else.

echelon 7mo ago
Here are just some of the things you can do with tracking: - Dox, coerce, blackmail, and ruin political candidates, powerful CEOs, and wealthy people. If they watch a category of porn that is embarrassing or have an affair, suddenly you have leverage against them. You can parlay that to accomplish lots of things. - Make it impossible to talk about certain things and eventually eliminate those things. Porn today, abortion tomorrow. LGBT, women's rights ... it's a tool to start enforcing an ideology. Eventually these things can be disappeared entirely, not just the discourse. You just cordon off and begin washing it away bit by bit, year by year. Once the control mechanisms are in place, it cannot be stopped. - Kill anonymous communication. This can pin identities to online comments. You can then punish people of the ideology you don't like by denying them jobs, auditing them, etc. This has a chilling effect on political opposition. This also makes it much harder to leak or report information safely and harms the ability to whistle blow. - In general, this also pushes society into more religious, more conservative views. With it comes a lack of skepticism and a greater appreciation for authority. - Ultimately, this is a step into 1984. If we go down that route, we will eventually be owned in whole by the authoritarian powers at top. This entire conversation will be memory holed. Once a right is lost, we will not get it back. Then it's just one step after another into hell. We must fight this. Our lives, our freedom, our future - depend on it.
- scotty79 7mo ago
  > ruin political candidates, powerful CEOs, and wealthy people This is mostly fantasy propagated by works of fiction. In the real world release of any evidence of sins has practically zero impact on the wealthy people and when it very occasionally does have an impact it just happens in cases of people who weren't wealthy enough for the circumstances.