freedom on ThoughtCrime

A layman interpretation of Brazilian age verification law

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 01:54:00 +0000

This cartoon never gets old. A 2005 cartoon by John Jonik showing internet speech control was already a topic back then. Hmm, I was thinking, the corporate media guy looks like Mark Fuckerberg…

I know, bad timing to return with this site. After 5 years of the last post, I am back here discussing the heated topic of the moment, and it is not only in technology circles.

Internet age verification and similar laws are popping all over the world. In no specific order, Australia started with banning people under 16 from social media[1, 2] (we can discuss if this is good or not, I have my opinions but maybe for another time), then UK had the dystopian Online Safety Act [3, 4] (“““Safety”””, many quotes), the EU is discussing a bloc wide similar thing[5], some US states passed some similars laws, like California and Colorado[6], and the ~~shithole~~ ~~banana’s republic~~ Brazilian republic decided to introduce its own version.

I would argue these are not coincidences, and I even argue these are not just politicians imitating each others like monkey see monkey do. Well, I may not need to argue when recently some internet anonymous[7] (almost always them, because the Big News not only don’t give a fuck for these kind of things, they support) (update while reviewing this text: the Tbote Project from the anonymous above released some investigation on the Brazilian laws, I will take a look later) using public records was able to point to finger to Meta (and others) as main proponent of internet age verification laws. I need to delve more (“delve”, do I look like a LLM?) on these findings, specially regarding the law in Brazil, but for now the shit is done and we need to live with it.

All these age verification laws are similar but not equal. Californa law[8], for exemple, request age indication at operating system level, when setting up a device, i.e., you can input any number you want. While I disagree with the concept of even giving my fake birthday date to Big Tech in overall (I disagree with the very own principle, not the method), at least it is a reasonable expectation. Adults are the one to buy and set up the devices, so I think it is fair to be on them to apropriately set the device and give to their children. New York’s bill[10], on the opposite, requires age verification, and although wasn’t approved yet, there is a risk of this fuckery to pass. Well, the same New York wants to force 3D printers to spy on you and block weapons parts printing[11, § 837-AA] snucking in a budget bill, so you can see the clear tendency of politicians to jump on to dumb ideas.

Back to Brazil. The law approved just last year, in September, requires age verification at operating system level on top of require age verification on websites. Don’t ask me why this double requirement, but you know, the average Brazilian politician IQ is lower than a rat (sorry, rats, you don’t deserve this comparision), so don’t try to make too much sense.

If you don’t care about the background of this law skip to the (il)legal analysis section. But I think you may be interested that, banana’s republic being banana’s republic, the trigger for this bill to pass was a well-intentioned youtuber getting the wrong kind of attention. Yes, a youtuber. Jesus!

The dangers of an ownership-less society

Mon, 11 Jan 2021 04:59:00 +0000

After a long time, I’m back! And this time, it is about a seemingly random subject.

Sometimes I like to watch Louis Rossmann’s Youtube channel, a guy that owns a repair shop for electronics in New York. Most of this videos it is ranting about something, especially about Apple’s anti-competitivity practices, like locking down the software and hardware of their products to avoid third parties (like you, me and repair shops not associated with them) to change parts and make repair on it. It is a distasteful behaviour that should be condemned, but it is Apple, so clap clap, is magic! They can do everything they please, like pushing back against a law that prohibits US companies to contracts companies offshore that uses forced labor. Not a joke, they are against it! (the law, not the forced labor). Well, it is not about this today’s post, but surely it has to do about this: the amount of control that nowadays companies has and will have over the things you use or have purchased. And before you yell at me, no, I’m not against the march forward of technological advances, that it always have pros and drawbacks and it is almost always morally neutral (except facial recognition, this one has only drawbacks and it is immoral. I may write about this sometime). Anyway, one of the Rossmann’s video is exactly about the lost of ownership of physical thing we purchased (we don’t have ownership about virtual things, only licenses, at least legally speaking. It a fucking hell). The title is “YOU WILL OWN NOTHING AND BE HAPPY!”, a slogan from a World Economic Forum’s video about “how the world could change by 2030”, and it is so… dystopic? Ok, it is not prediction with solid bases, but it is a warning about what common people, and moreover, millionaires and billionaires that own the biggest companies today may think about the future. And if they are who thinking this, and they are who create the products and sell them, it is not hard to see that is not a innocent prediction, but a “I’ll make it be” prediction.

But what the fuck is an ownership-less society? Imagine a world where everything is a Uber-like service, pay when you use it. I know, plenty of things are already this ways, like the very own Uber, video and music streaming services, and the old-fashioned house rent (after all, everyone needs a home to live). So, at first glance, it doesn’t sound so bad, and I partially agree, why would I need an expensive car that I use once or twice in the week, or why would I spend time and money buying digital or physical movies if I only watch once, or why should I pay an insurmontable amount of money upfront if I just got a low-level job? And the list go on, it is very convenient, it is cheaper, it uses less of your free time. And although I use “ownership-less”, it is not really without any ownership (and have nothing to do with communism/socialist, on contrary, is overflowing capitalism and money), but instead of you having the possession and the use right, you will own only the use right – precisely, privilege – not the good (physical or digital) itself. So far, so good, but I wouldn’t be typing this article if it wasn’t to complain about something, right?

The death of Hong Kong's freedoms (part 1)

Sat, 10 Oct 2020 02:56:00 +0000

Democracies die. If you lived or live in a well adjusted country where the probability of an authoritarian leader can rise in a few years and the instituitions are solid enough, this death may not be so easy to grasp. People living in such places more or less take for granted that their rights will not be arbitrarily striped. But, even so, there is always a risk that given enough time, such tragedy will happen. Those democracies slowly may fade away, turning first in semi-democracies, where authoritarism and nullification of many freedoms will be accepted under the guise of “protecting the children” or “counteract terrorism” (we all have listened such excuses before), and then one day you realise you are living under an authoritarian rule.

For Hong Kong, that never was a true democracy, the day when it will become part of a totalitarian state is already set to July 1st, 2047. But, kind of unexpected, this city-state have had a taste of limited democracy, but still something to be proud of, and it is sad to see that so quickly this place, that saw many of freedoms and rights unthinkable to anyone in China, has dived into semi-totalitarism. How could it came to be, under millions of silicon eyes and in the era of instantaneous flow of information? This is the thing I want to think along this two posts, because I already typed 8 Word pages and filled only half of the things I wanted to say, so I split in two because I can.

The Modern (Weeb) Book Burning [Update]

Fri, 31 Jul 2020 03:19:00 +0000

UPDATE:

GO FUCK YOURSELF AUSTRALIA!

Good morning/afternoon/evening everyone. Let’s start with a… hmm… not so happy post (sorry). If you are a real weeb/otaku/smelly person, you may have paid attention to the following news (reproduced in a few pop culture outlets, like ANN or Nichiban): a Australian politician, tired of fighting kangoroos and gigantic spiders, gathered her energy, time and infinite knowledge to fight a evil and clever enemy.

Mangas.

I can imagine your disappointment reaction, but if you didn’t know about this, now you do. In a TL;DR version, she asked (demanded? threatened?) a major Japanese book seller in Sydney to remove some titles that reproduces (big quotes) “child exploitation”. As you expected, dumb politicians are in everywhere, but Australia likes to take the leader role. The reaction of many readers and fans were as you may expect, flooding her Twitter post in which she celebrates the removal from the store the “immoral” material with criticism, irony and indignation. Days later, the bookstore responded in a Twitter thread about why they removed, saying the titles (may) come back when the classification board approves it (or bans it, they can do that).

So, let’s dive in the characters of this story and understand what really happened, and what may happen.