I have written before that I expected the Republican agenda to be one of trans genocide if they win.
I (am considerably enriched by some Laphroaig Quarter Cask) suddenly feel the urge to write on this once more, now that the decision has been rendered and we are in for the whole cruel agenda.
Perhaps it is because the agenda is now stated explicitly. Perhaps the Supreme Court in United States v. Skrmetti will deliver to the states the ability to deny care and thereby commit these murders.
But new from Punchbowl News comes this story. No less than a commissioner of the FTC (The fucking ftc!) aiming to be the chair intends to engage in fighting against gender care. I think it is clear that this anti-trans genocide agenda will extend throughout every agency in the Trump government.
They make it clear that this agenda does not just include youths but adults as well. To quote the apparent pitch:
“Fight back against the trans agenda. Investigate the doctors, therapists, hospitals, and others who deceptively pushed gender confusion, puberty blockers, hormone replacement, and sex-change surgeries on children and adults while failing to disclose strong evidence that such interventions are not helpful and carry enormous risks.”
I would be remiss if I did not state that these are all objectionable lies. Beyond that, it must be repeated. They state in black and white that their agenda extends to adults.
Staring at 404media.co, with Becky Ferreira writing this weeks edition of ‘the Abstract’. The portion that really stirs my mind is the story on AI poetry, and how in one test readers preferred the AI generated poems. Why? To quote the article quoting the research
“Non-expert poetry readers expect to like human-authored poems more than they like AI-generated poems,” said authors Brian Porter and Edouard Machery of the University of Pittsburgh. “But in fact, they find the AI-generated poems easier to interpret; they can more easily understand images, themes, and emotions in the AI-generated poetry than they can in the more complex poetry of human poets. They therefore prefer these poems, and misinterpret their own preference as evidence of human authorship.”
I must say I am disheartened by this result. Not particularly surprised. As far as I am concerned much of the joy of poetry is in chewing on it. I have had great conversations on the poems I send out on my Christmas cards, and I feel this only because both of us had really thought on the poem (A burdock clawed my gown, not burdocks blame, but mine…) and then weeks later had a chance to discuss what it means to us. Luckily poetry will live on, I have no fear of that. We may just have to sing its praises louder.
On the politics front, Orac at Respectful Insolence describes why exactly RFK Jr. is bad news as HHS secretary. I can’t help but agree with him that the media has done a fine job of making RFK Jr. seem far more palatable than he is, and I expect that trend to continue. They will cover this administration ‘as usual’, so they can maintain their access.
In a surprising turn of events, I agree with Bill Clinton. Per the NYT:
President-elect Donald J. Trump made Vice President Kamala Harris’s support for transgender rights a core part of his argument that she was outside the political mainstream. His campaign used video of Ms. Harris expressing support for taxpayer-funded transition surgeries for transgender inmates in a torrent of ads that declared: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”
The Harris campaign largely did not answer those ads, but, internally, the Democratic Party was roiled by them. Former President Bill Clinton was said to have urged the Harris campaign to respond to them, and to have been told that they were not making an obvious dent in the race.
I had certainly felt (and have not written it… argh) that the Democratic Party had really failed in any messaging defending trans people, and this to me sounds exactly like how I expected them to talk about it. Running right down the middle and not standing for anything. Take it for granted that you will get their votes. Such an approach is not up to the seriousness of this moment. Token resistance will not be enough. Words will not be enough. Definite action will be needed. Will they be willing to pay the political cost? I doubt it.
To start out the roundup, Karl Bode at Techdirt on Canada’s new right-to-repair law. See also Doctorow on Pluralistic covering the same for some further explanation. Controlling our devices is the first step to controlling our data, and in an America that is growing more authoritarian one must protect themselves and their data. Right to repair also means a right to disassemble, understand, and verify. Only when we fully know our devices can we fully trust them.
Following up on that, a guide from WIRED on protecting your privacy. Small steps.
Back to government surveillance, with a 404 media piece on the use of location data by the government (warrant required? Unclear). Even taking the assumption that under current law a warrant is required, I imagine there will soon be a federal judiciary willing to chip away at the 4th amendment. How else will we find the (immigrants/trans people/journalists/assorted enemies within)? I worry that I put too fine a point on these concerns. But then again, I would prefer to be wrong and advancing security. A ‘hope to be wrong and plan to be right’ kind of deal.
His explanation that he misspoke the word “creationism” because it was being used in news articles, which he had just previously testified he had not read, was, frankly, incredible. We all watched that tape. And per Mr. Linker’s suggestion that all the kids like movies, I’d like to show it one more time. (Tape played.) That was no deer in the headlights. That deer was wearing shades and was totally at ease.
Starting out with one from Wired, on facial recognition. Never forget that the terrain has changed for protest and online. I would certainly recommend anyone take steps to protect themselves moving forward. I am interested in the intersection of ‘dazzle makeup’, gender classification, and facial recognition in general. Genderfuck = AI protection? One can only hope.
Bonus link? The dazzle makeup one above. That machine-vision.no website seems neat, looking at how we conceptualize AI and machine vision etc. in media can tell us a lot about our worries and fears as a society. Back on course a little, dazzle makeup is one of those things I really wish were more true than it is. You can trick the AI, sure, but any human will pick out your face and track you that way. You become a person of interest real quick when you hide in that way. You need to blend, I think. Still, a person can dream.
Next up, one on pornography from techdirt. In a project 2025, Christian nationalist country, ‘pornography’ will not be limited to actual materials for sexual pleasure. It will be used as a label to restrict and remove LGBTQ+ material. It is literally the Moms for Liberty playbook, now coming to a federal government near you.
Wrapping up my links, read and subscribe to Aftermath!
Reading the always wonderful “Pivot to AI” by Amy Castor and David Gerard, and they link to a great 2019 piece by Os Keyes, “The Body Instrumental” which was new to me and enjoyable. Well, enjoyable in that particular way that any sufficiently prescient and worrying thing can be enjoyable. I have been thinking briefly as of late on heteronormativity, so both articles were a great coincidence.
I can’t restate any point not already sufficiently covered by the two articles above, but it really does strike me that any such “gender determining” (perhaps really “sex determining” in the end is their goal, reflecting the binary and exclusive nature of sex and gender for them, not that either is so binary as they think) AI will be inescapably heteronormative (perhaps “gender normative”, as I am speaking mostly in the gender, expression, and such things realm, not in the relational sense, although I take the term to apply to both. I can not claim to be an experienced scholar of gender, so forgive me if my terminology is incorrect. I was just reading Sex in Public, so, like, 1998?. Still very much a relevant work in my mind, but my cognition is biased towards that which I can remember in the moment).
The training data is classified first by humans, who will have to fit each photo into a binary category, man or woman. Most of the data will likely be of people who “pass” or perform gender in the correct way, simply owing to the dominance of such images in the training data. Movies, photos, public domain images, et cetera. Simply by volume alone the normative wins out, and therefore any such AI will be biased in its favor. It will be biased to fit people into these categories.
Turning to prognostication, who will be allowed to opt out? To gate access to a room or facility behind such an AI means that the non-normative, the queer, will be penalized. Even if one is notionally allowed to opt out, the process of doing so may very well lead to further stigmatization simply by virtue of being the different one.
As Keyes states: “We should focus on delegitimizing the technology altogether, ensuring it never gets integrated into society, and that facial recognition as a whole (with its many, many inherent problems) goes the same way.”
I could not have said it better or any earlier. You simply must read the whole article, as the portion on how the AI will reshape gender in its image is brilliant and gets to the very heart of not just the AI problem, but of problems of gender in society more broadly.
Those were my thoughts upon reading the NYT this morning.
I want to leave it at that, but it feels as though I owe the thought a few more words.
I think if one was going for trans genocide, this is certainly a good way to keep the ball rolling (The closure of the clinic happened in 2021, but now I am reminded again of the cruelty). This is because we, as a nation, have certain thoughts (generally) about children and their personhood. Mainly they aren’t full people and for many they are more akin to property. Therefore, a child can have no sense of their gender (2024-11-16 edit – and/or sex) outside of their parents’ sense of what the child’s gender (2024-11-16 edit – and/or sex) ought to be.
Furthermore, as the whole thing has turned into a ‘culture war’ and a political talking point, far separated from the actual issue of: doing the right thing, quantifying what’s the best way to help these children, or creating a humane society that won’t discriminate against them or use them as a target of violence for political gain and personal gratification (I must imagine.).
I could keep writing but it belabors my final point.
I do believe that presently the Republican Party and others are engaged in a campaign of eventual trans genocide and queer genocide more generally. The point is to try and destroy all those who are trans and prevent certainly anyone else from coming out. I think a murder is a murder, no matter if you pulled the trigger or just loaded the gun. If you create a society where trans kids can’t get care, you are creating a society that is ok with some of those kids killing themselves. It is murder by the lawmakers’ hands all the same.
You start with children since they are vulnerable and the parents are more easily convinced to doubt. Once that’s done you prevent adults from living as they are and as they please. The cruelty happens to be a happy bonus, from giving the mob their enemy.
From there, if it doesn’t happen simultaneously, I expect same sex marriage and queerness in general to be the target.
I have some hope that such a thing will be unacceptable to the wider American public. But I worry that the American public is still sufficiently transphobic in a large enough quantity that people will be hurt. I know it, in fact, as they are already hurting people.
I find it terribly hard to get to an ending. I wonder if I’m not overselling the point.
But it’s hard to listen to these people and not believe them when they tell the world what they want.
Let it never be said DrMundane isn’t passionate about anything…. Right? Who knows.
My comments are less on the story itself, more on a portion that provoked some thought. To put the quote up front:
Since AI image generators are trained on real photos, researchers also took steps to ensure that AI-generated NCII in the study did not re-traumatize victims or depict real people who might stumble on the images on X.
“Each image was tested against a facial-recognition software platform and several reverse-image lookup services to verify it did not resemble any existing individual,” the study said. “Only images confirmed by all platforms to have no resemblance to individuals were selected for the study.”
These more “ethical” images were posted on X using popular hashtags like #porn, #hot, and #xxx, but their reach was limited to evade potential harm, researchers said.
I was immediately thinking of my previous post upon reading this.
I think it’s fair to say that no one consented to being in facial-recognition software platforms. I certainly did not. Furthermore, I expect a victim of NCII (non consensual intimate imagery) to have likely gone through the steps to remove themselves from any such site, as part of trying to control their likeness across the web. So it strikes me as imperfect to rely on such services to make sure you do not re-traumatize people.
The grander point is that no one consented to being in the AIs dataset, or perhaps only those whose faces appear in CC0 licensed works. No one consented to being in face search databases. And so it strikes me as a grand irony to use these to ensure folks who have been victims of NCII are not one again non-consensually used.
I don’t know what the ‘better’ way to do such research is, to be sure. I imagine their actions in limiting reach on X also helped to mitigate harm to people. I imagine their methods were reviewed by an IRB and received their approval. I think the research was conducted ethically, and do not fault the researchers, to be clear.
I fault the system that allows such wonton use and abuse of others work for the gain of uninvolved AI grifters and scummy website operators (here’s looking at you, face search sites).
P.S. (I thought of this after publishing, so putting it here for transparency)
I think it’s safe to say given X’s loose moderation that AI (likely grok, right?) has already included NCII images and will therefore be generating images based on work they have no right to use (and certainly have a moral duty to exclude in my mind).
Reading Ars Technica this morning, an article on doxing everyone (everyone!) with Meta’s (née facebook) smart glasses. The article is of great import, but I headed over to the linked paper that detailed the process. The authors, AnhPhu Nguyen and Caine Ardayfio, were kind enough to provide links giving instructions on removing your information from the databases linked. Although I imagine it becomes a war of attrition as they scrape and add your data back.
Naturally I followed these links to get an idea of how one would go about removing their data from these services. I was particularly interested with the language on the one service, FaceCheck.id.
To quote the part that stuck out to me:
We reserve the right not to remove photos of child sex offenders, convicted rapists, and other violent criminals who could pose physical harm to innocent people.
Now this is terribly interesting to me. It makes clear the difference between what they purport to sell, or be, or give, and what they actually speaking are. In fact, the contrast is enhanced if only you read down the page a little:
DISCLAIMER: For educational purposes only. All images are indexed from public, readily available web pages only.
Ah, so it’s for educational purposes, but they reserve the right to make sure that some people remain visible, ostensibly in the interests of ‘public safety’. They, of course, are not the courts. They have no information that allows them to assess who presents a risk to others, and even if they did a private entity has no right to do so. Is this valuable in actually protecting people? I am not sold on that. If someone poses a danger then by all means, let the court’s sentencing and probation reflect that.
What is the education here? Should we profile based on those who have been caught? What have we learned through this venture? Surely such a high minded educational site will have peer reviewed research that is advanced through this educational database.
What they do have, what they sell, are the lurid possibilities. Sell the darkness and sell knowing. How can you know if someone is a child sex offender? How can you know if your nice neighbor once beat a man? What if? What if? What if?
You can know who’s a rapist or a ‘violent criminal’. You know your child will be safe, since you check every person they meet. Safety is for sale. Never mind that this likely isn’t the best way to protect children. Never mind the fact they served their sentence, they were violent criminals once. Never mind the racial bias of the justice system. Never mind a case of mistaken identity on these services’ part.
They veil these much baser interests, the interest in profiting off of speculation; sowing distrust and fear, in the cloak of public safety and moral responsibility. Furthermore, the entire public is caught in their dragnet.
