Leto Fregar

@alice@lgbtqia.space @farooqkz@mastodon.bsd.cafe this is not true, according to Merriam-Webster. Decriminalisation of X alone means removing all law that makes X a criminal act. That is not making something legal in the sense of allowed. Parking in a non parking zone is not a criminal act, it is still not allowed and not equal to parking in a legal parking spot. Legalising of X means that X is legal (i.e. allowed) within the legal framework. Rules still may apply, but that is true for basically everything. To stay in the above example: parking your vehicle is generally legal, as long as the vehicle is sufficiently safe and not parked in a prohibited location. Having someone work for you is generally legal, as long as you pay them at least the minimum wage, provide legally mandated breaks etc. I agree with the goal formulated in the pdf: sex work should be regulated by the same general rules as any other kind of work. But to achieve that, you have to legalise it, i.e. remove all laws prohibiting it. To just decriminalise it would be technically fulfilled by redefining it from a criminal offence to an administrative offence. Even if it would not be actively sanctioned, you would get exactly the situation you just mentioned: a separation between (illegal, while not criminal) sex work and all other kinds of work (fully legalized). But again, I believe we align in the goal and only argue about specific words. Can we agree on that?

@alice@lgbtqia.space @farooqkz@mastodon.bsd.cafe 🤷 If that is truly the meaning of the term, then I agree with it. And it is in the sense provided by the pdf you linked. In my understanding of the term, that is not the case, as I understand it as "remains illegal, is just no longer punishable as a crime". (For comparison: https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/difference-between-decriminalization-and-legalization-substances/) Meaning in my understanding of the term applied to sex work would mean it would remain illegal, it would just no longer be prosecuted as a crime (which basically matches to some extent what the pdf describes as legalisation). My understanding matches the dictionary description: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decriminalization https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legalization (admittedly, that definition is far more vague). In the end, I believe we agree on the goal, even if we might disagree on how to name it.

@alice@lgbtqia.space @farooqkz@mastodon.bsd.cafe yes (admittedly rather diagonally), and even before reading that, I was aware that the actual implementation in Germany is deeply flawed. In the end, I think the exact terms don't matter (if you are not a legal scholar/legislator). What matters to me is the following: Sex work should not be treated differently than any other work. Work specific hazards need to be addressed, as it is done with any other kind of work. And the flawed German example supports my other point: legislation should be evaluated and adapted regularly, to identify flaws and correct them. This is also in no way special to sex work, but something I consider necessary for almost all legislation. Note: maybe no specific (as in addressing specific risks, not specifically sex work) legislation is required. That is also an option, and also in this case scientific evaluation is necessary.

@alice@lgbtqia.space @farooqkz@mastodon.bsd.cafe hm. Might be a language/legal framework issue.

I am from Germany, and here we have two examples of both terms how they are used here:

Decriminalisation: abortion up to the third month has been decriminalised under certain circumstances, i.e. it will not be punished, if the woman* had a consultation before (that is intended to show alternatives). But as it is still technically illegal, just no longer criminal, the woman has to bear the costs of the procedure. Legalisation: under defined circumstances (e.g. if there is a threat to the health of the mother*, more general: abortion due to medical necessity) abortion is legal. This means that the health insurance has to pay all costs related to the procedure. In other words, it is treated like any other medical procedure.**

And that is what I am aiming for: a legal framework, where sex work is legally treated like any other kind of work. This might include special regulations to counter special work hazards. Again, this is the same for countless other jobs as well (nurses, food preparation, low wage / short term employment, ...).

But aside from debates of exact legal terminology: in general I argue to listen to the demands of sex workers. Talk with them, not about them. I don't care what you call it, as long as it measurably improves their situation.

• I am using the translated words as used in the laws. This includes of course any non-binary, transgender or otherwise non-conforming person. ** I am neither a lawyer nor otherwise a legal expert. I am just politically interested and follow the debates on this topic whenever they arise

@alice@lgbtqia.space @farooqkz@mastodon.bsd.cafe for me, decriminalisation is not enough. That just means it is no longer punishable by law. It needs to be fully legalized, and as a consequence, regulated.

Regulation should aim (imho) at the following goals:

• ensure consent of sex workers. This includes providing a solid social safety net (or better an UBI), to make coercion with money harder (you have a lot more free will when you work to afford some luxuries rather than when you need money for pure survival)
• ensure safety of sex workers: support setups that are safe workplaces, disencourage setups that put sex workers at risk.
• minimize health risks, both for sex workers and their clients (for types of sex work that includes direct interaction)

All these goals are difficult to achieve, and not every approach that sounds good when writing it into law will hold up to expectations (case I remember: risk of criminal liability for brothel owners, set up to protect sex workers from exploitation lead to more forced into street work, which carries different risks). So part of the initial law should be a mandatory scientific evaluation in repeated cycles, to analyse the impact of current regulations and providing suggestions for adaptations.

....aaaaand that last part might be a good idea for almost any legislation....

Also, most of the regulations would be similar to what you would set up for any kind of work...

Someone mentioned unionizing sex workers. Good idea 👍

Huh, the more I think about it, the more it seems like the kind of regulations you probably need for sex work apply (in principle, details wary) to basically all kinds of work. Makes you think...

@yoshiXYZ@kolektiva.social bei aller berechtigter Kritik an derartigen Maßnahmen bzw. den gefährlichen Konsequenzen einer z.B. "Ausweispflicht" für VPN-Systeme, müssen sich Anonymisierungsbefürworter einigen Fragen stellen:

Frage 1: gibt es im Internet Angebote, bei denen eine Altersbeschränkung an irgendeiner Stelle im Prozess sinnvoll ist? Antwort 1: tendenziell ja (Bestellung z.B. von Alkohol/Tabakwaren...) -> ist letztlich eine gesellschaftliche Frage, die Argumente für eine Beschränkung sind definitiv gegeben und valide.

Frage 2: gibt es solche Angebote bei denen die Nutzung (jenseits der Altersverifizierung) anonym erfolgen kann/sollte. Antwort 2: schwieriger. Bestellungen (siehe 1) benötigen konkrete Empfängerangaben, Anonymität ist damit generell beschränkt. Der Rest ist noch mehr eine gesellschaftliche Frage. Befürworter gibt es definitiv, und in einzelnen Bereichen haben sie durchaus berechtigte Argumente (Auswirkungen Pornographie). Gegenargumente existieren ebenso.

Frage 3: falls Frage 2 gesellschaftlich mit "ja" beantwortet wird, und es sich dabei nicht um einzelne Nischenangebote handelt (die ließen sich ggf. ebenso spezifisch betrachten), gibt es eine technische Lösung für eine anonyme Altersverifizierung?

Egal, wie man das bzgl. Social Media sieht, gesellschaftlich scheint die überragende Mehrheit Frage 2 mit "ja" zu beantworten. Damit kommen wir um eine Antwort auf Frage 3 nicht herum.

Aus meiner Sicht ist daher eine strenge Trennung zwischen identifizierenden Daten und einer Altersverifizierung der einzige Weg für einen Schutz der Anonymität. Heißt, der Inhaltsanbieter im Netz erfährt ausschließlich "ist alt genug ja/nein". Mindestens ebenso wichtig: die Nutzeridentifikation erfolgt ausschließlich lokal und temporär, nicht über einen vernetzten Dienstleister. Eine hypothetische Lösung zur Veranschaulichung (also ohne Umsetzbarkeit, Schwachstellen usw. genau zu betrachten):

• Internetdienst wird aufgerufen, fragt bei der aufrufenden Applikation nach "Alter>X?"
• Die Applikation selbst hat keine Info darüber und fragt beim OS nach (selbe Frage)
• Das OS weiß um eine Verifizierungsapp. (Deutschland: z.B. Ausweisapp). Und fragt dort nach. Das OS stellt allerdings zwei Fragen: "Nutzer identifiziert? Alter>X?"
• Die Verifizierungsapp macht ihren Job (z.B. verlangt vom Nutzer das Auflegen des Ausweises). Und antwortet dem OS jeweils mit true/false.
• Das OS antwortet der Applikation nur mit true, wenn es zweimal true bekommen hat.
• Die Applikation antwortet dem Service das gleiche wie das OS

Ziele des Modells: der Service erfährt nichts über den User (jenseits ggf. der IP-Adresse), außer "ist alt genug oder auch nicht". Die Applikation ist nur Vermittler. Das OS ist ebenfalls nur Vermittler, damit ist dieser Ansatz theoretisch auch in Internet-Cafés o.ä. nutzbar ohne festen OS-User. Eventuell kann das OS Informationen für eine laufende Session vorhalten. Einzig die lokal laufende App hat weitergehende Informationen. Idealerweise speichert sie diese nicht, sondern fordert sie bei Bedarf neu an.

Vielleicht bin ich hier naiv. Vermutlich ist der oben beschriebene Ablauf nicht ausgereift. Ich sehe es nur so: es gibt zu viele relevante Argumente für Altersbeschränkungen in bestimmten Fällen, dass eine Lösung dafür kommen wird. Das kann eine datensparsame, FOSS Lösung sein. Oder ein Service von Datenkraken wie Microsoft, Google oder Meta. Wenn wir das erste nicht liefern, wird es das zweite werden.

Und dann ist die Anonymität im Netz wirklich verloren.

@alice@lgbtqia.space @JoBlakely@mastodon.social @MyLittleMetroid@sfba.social @timbray@cosocial.ca the blue ones give the term "killer heels" a completely new meaning 🙈😂👍

RE: @DXMacGuffin@metalhead.club

Damn I want that now! 😂

@dl2jml@mastodon.radio @CCC@social.bau-ha.us Erfahrungsgemäß wenn der #eugh "nein" gesagt hat... Danach formuliert man den ganzen Kram um, und bis zum Abschluss des Folgeverfahrens ändert sich nichts... Siehe die #schrems Entscheidungen...

@BahnAnsagen@social.tchncs.de Naja, je nach aktuellem Verspätungs- und Chaosfaktor mag da durchaus Bedarf bestehen 😜

@GyrosGeier@hachyderm.io Imho the FOSS and general civil rights movement are missing a critical point, which puts them into a politically losing position. That is the fact that there are good arguments for some services to be age restricted, and to enforce this age restriction, a robust age verification makes sense.

So far, states have put out laws that require certain services to validate the age of their users (most prominent case: porn). A lot of those services ignore the actual requirements, and just add a "are you old enough yes/no" popup. Whenever one of those services was asked to change this, the most common defense was, "there is no common, simple to use solution, and if we implement something strict, users will migrate to the services that care even less about laws". Usually, they succeeded.

That age restrictions are now extended to services, where the arguments to do so are far weaker is just an attention booster. Because on face level, the now affected large services are proposing what had been the theoretical solution to all the counter arguments:

• the restricted service doesn't need to know your identity, it is enough if an "old enough" flag true/false is transmitted (this, by itself, is privacy friendly)
• implementing this flag on a device user level makes it easy to implement for services, as it will be available for all

Basically, from the point of political arguments, the supporters of this solution are on a "this is what you wanted, isn't it" line. And again, on face value, they do have a point.

Fighting individual laws resulting from all this will be a never ending story (until we lose), if we cannot do either (or both) of the following:

• convincingly argue that there are no legitimate reasons to age restrict services with unidentified users (note: if it is e.g. a mail order service, at least an address is needed, and age verification can be done at handover, so these cases don't need to be considered). Possible, but at the very least challenging.
• propose an age verification service, that is privacy friendly, hard to circumvent, and easy to implement on the service side.

If we cannot do either, sooner or later there will be laws implemented that require something like this. And as you said, while we might still be able to have local FOSS software that doesn't implement any of this, it will probably lock us out from a lot of services on the net.

@sashag @futzle Too sad they didn't. I could imagine some wild covers for popular songs with that - and maybe later something of their own. Would have been a unique sound for sure!

@GyrosGeier I see two paths regarding this: 1) The legislative situation remains mostly "as is". As a result, big players in the FOSS world will implement code to formally comply with age verification requirements (like systemd has done). Closed systems (windows, apple, ...) will implement solutions that follow the law but also benefit their data harvesting strategies, i.e. taking age verification rather serious. Politicians will point to big tech complying and be happy. Tech savvy users will find convenient workarounds. The desired results will not manifest. The cycle starts again. 2) Age verification requirements gain more and more popularity among politicians. International law starts to align on this, increasing pressure to not only formally, but actually comply with these new laws. No difference for the big tech companies. FOSS will more and more be forced to make a decision: comply or shut down. Bigger players will comply, small maintainers will give up (as it happened before with other laws). The FOSS community will be poorer for it, the tech companies gain power. Tech savvy users will find less convenient workarounds. The desired results will not manifest. The cycle starts again. Sadly, I see 2 the more likely path

@jaykuo and here is the scary part: I don't think he still cares enough to even blame someone else... Considering the doomsday rhetoric that was used in military briefings when this war started, I am actually worried.

@ramichaelseidlitz "Nichts von dem, was tatsächlich helfen würde, erfordert eine biometrische Massenüberwachung. Nichts davon erfordert die Abschaffung der Anonymität." Das ist für mich der kritische Punkt: es wird mehr #überwachung gefordert/eingeführt, statt das zu tun, was wirklich helfen würde. Wäre das hier ein Einzelfall, wäre es schlimm genug. Es wiederholt sich nur häufig genug, dass es sich nach Methode anfühlt...

@kimlockhartga @alice if you want to, feel hugged!

@WeirdWriter@caneandable.social First: Well done! Second: I know nothing about you beyond what you wrote in this post, so the part about cracking down your cane made me imagine you as an elder wizard in "modern day" disguise. I like the image, so I refuse to research and find out more about the real you. At least for now 😇

@Natasha_Jay@tech.lgbt OK, the term "harvested from the blood of" sounded a few alarm bells. However, after reading the article, it is more "copied from", as the actual antibodies were artificially produced. Makes it a lot more ethical and would allow for mass application...

@greatlaketrout @nemo @mullvadnet I think a big issue here is, that politics are focusing far more on the M than on the CSA. However, the CSA does most of the harm, the M then adds insult to injury. Problem is, actually fighting CSA takes time, requires a lot of effort, costs a lot of money and feels uncomfortable sometimes, as you sometimes need to intervene in family affairs.

@_L1vY_@mstdn.social @alice@lgbtqia.space Probably because the centuries of patriarchy have shaped current business structures. This is not an excuse! Being aware of the history just helps to understand the issue. In this case change is necessary, but fighting expectations shaped over decades will take time as well. It is also a question of business type: I worked in marketing companies (85% women, meetings still dominated by dominance and hot air) and now industry (no nonsense attitude, even though 90% men).

@TwraSun@mastodon.social die Herausforderung ist jetzt nur, das den Wählern der #cdu klar zu machen - einschließlich dass die meisten davon näher dran sind in das #buergergeld zu rutschen, als zu den Reichen aufzuschließen... Wenn ich an ein paar Familiengespräche denke...