アノニマスの見解 Ep.16:検閲屋からAdpocalypseまで

Hello everyone, and welcome back to ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI

It’s been a while since the last episode. 2019 has been an eventful year, and we’ve been busy with various projects. But at long last, it’s time to talk about something very close to home…YouTube.

It’s no secret that the platform has many problems, and the ones feeling the worst of it are the Content Creators. ContentID and malicious copyright strikes were already problems for a long time, but recently YouTube has been much more aggressive about Demonitization. Japanese viewers are almost certainly familiar with the problem…it’s so ubiquitous it’s mentioned by VTubers and non-political Japanese YouTubers alike.

Of course, in typical YouTube fashion, Demonitization is neither reasonable nor balanced. Videos are inexplicably demonetized for the smallest infractions, or sometimes no infractions at all, while certain channels can blatantly break the rules and suffer few or no consequences.

At the same time, the YouTube algorithm seems to promote large, corporate content more while burying small independent Creators. Meanwhile, the Media around the world seems to routinely demonize YouTubers, casting them in the most negative possible light at every opportunity.

But is all of this unrelated, isolated cases? Or could there be a common thread connecting these problems, and if so, what is it? This is a puzzle with many pieces, and before we can put them together, we first need to study them individually.

A lot of what we want to talk about here won’t be new for our English-speaking audience. This topic has actually been covered extensively by a variety of English language channels. But it isn’t covered so extensively in Japan, or at least not that I’ve seen, so it’s important to provide this information for local viewers.

When talking about the YouTube situation, we need to understand five different groups; YouTube itself, Content Creators, Corporate Advertisers, The Media, and the NGO/Activists (or “the Censors” as we’ve referred to them in a previous video). All of these actors have their own goals, but as we’ll see, many end up pushing in the same direction.

First, YouTube and the Content Creators. Many people think YouTube’s main purpose is to operate a video platform, but they’d be wrong. YouTube’s main purpose is to sell advertising space. The Creators are only useful to YouTube by giving them free content to advertise on, and attracting an audience to advertise to. This was more or less confirmed by a Washington Post report, where a former YouTube moderator claimed “our responsibility was never to the creators or to the users, it was to the advertisers”. Certainly, Content Creators can earn a small percentage through the Partner Program (unless they get demonetized), but in general the Creators are volunteer labor for YouTube’s bottom line.



Second, the Advertisers. Their goals are simple…they want to sell their products. YouTube provides them with a big audience of potential customers, but there’s one problem…not all of this content is “family friendly”. Having their ads appear next to controversial content creates the risk of bad press, which damages their brand. So they want to maximize their advertising benefit while minimizing their risk.

Next, the Media. Whether print, broadcast, or digital media, they’re the dying remnants of an old era. Based on an informal survey, both online and off, Japanese people below a certain age seem far more likely to get their entertainment from YouTube than anywhere else, and I imagine that pattern will hold globally. While the Media does often USE YouTube, they don’t generally make content FOR YouTube, which makes it difficult for them to compete directly with Content Creators. Media companies have huge budgets, hundreds of staff, and expensive equipment…but in many cases, they’re outperformed by individuals with nothing more than free software and a webcamera. Independent Creators are also usually better at making a closer, more authentic personal connection with their audience, something that old-guard Media companies can’t easily do.

Finally, the Censors…working through NGOs and activist groups. As discussed in ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI 13, these are people fixated on identity politics who want to force their worldview on others against their will, and for all opposing viewpoints to be silenced. They have connections inside YouTube and the Media, and exploit both to deplatform opponents and critics alike.

So how do all these pieces fit together? What’s the chain of events that led us to the present situation?

First, it starts with the Censors. For whatever reason, they decide a target needs to be deplatformed. This target could be an individual, or a group, but the tactics are the same. Using their contacts in the Media and NGOs, the Censors carry out a smear campaign of their target.

One famous example is Pewdiepie. Just one naughty word during a stream was enough for him to become the target of every major newspaper, branding him a neo-Nazi or worse. Another example is the so-called “Alternative Influencer Network”, or AIN. The AIN is a network of YouTubers outlined in a report by Rebecca Lewis, member of a left-leaning NGO called “Data & Society”. The report suggests that the “far right” uses this network of alternative media and opinion YouTubers to spread propaganda and radicalize people online.
有名な例は人気ユーチューバー「Pewdiepie」です。彼がゲーム実況ストリームの中の単なる1つの下品な発言のせいで、主要新聞に「ネオナチス」や「レイシスト」というレッテルを貼られました。他の例はいわゆる「オルターナティブ・インフルエンサー・ネットワーク」(別名:AIN)。AINは左翼系NGO「Data & Society」の会員「Rebecca Lewis」が作った報告書に述べられている政治的ユーチューバーのネットワークです。Lewisの報告によれば、このネットワークは人々を右翼系団体に採用するため、そして極右思想の宣伝するために使われていると思われます。

Naturally, the AIN report is plagued with bad data and massive leaps in logic. It made connections between YouTubers that didn’t make sense, and grouped all opposition to progressive talking points as “far right” for the purpose of problematizing it. The report was carefully analyzed and debunked by Software Engineer Mark Ledwich in a Medium post in late 2018, but by that point the damage had already been done, and arguably the AIN had fulfilled its purpose.
当然、AIN報告書は誤ったデータや論理の飛躍だらけです。Lewisは関係の全くないユーチューバーを無理やりにお互いに結び付けて、問題にするために広範囲の異なった批判の意見を「極右過激派」という誤ったラベルを貼りました。AIN報告書はソフトウェア・エンジニア「Mark Ledwich」のMediumブログで徹底的に分析され、暴露されました。とはいえ、その頃には、被害は既に与えられてしまっており、AINの本当の目標は達成されました。

While these sorts of tactics are seen less often in Japan, they do exist…Huffington Post Japan posted an article in early August talking about the “Intellectual Dark Web”, an almost identical smear campaign against academics who dared to disagree with liberal orthodoxy. HuffPo Japan ridiculously claims the members of this “Dark Web” are a “Dark Renaissance” that stands in opposition to human rights and democracy…claims that are as laughable as they are false.

Censors in the Media and NGOs push these smear campaigns, but the Media in general has every reason to help them. To mainstream Media, popular YouTubers are their competitors on this new platform. As such, every YouTuber that gets shut down decreases the market share of that competition. Business is war, after all.

Once the Censors and the Media have pushed their smear campaign far enough, eventually the Advertisers take notice (or are made to notice). Wanting to minimize the risk of brand damage, the Advertisers threaten to pull funding from YouTube if their ads appear next to all the “far right” content they’re hearing about in the news. Whether these reports are true or not, whether they’re fair or not is unimportant. The only thing that matters to them is brand image.

As major brands are a big source of income for YouTube’s advertising market, the site is quick to respond to their complaints. The rules suddenly become stricter, and channels find themselves mass demonitized for reasons that are hard to understand. This is what’s called an “Ad-pocalypse”…a name that should be familiar to English YouTubers, but may not be so familiar to Japanese audiences. An article on the site “Nuts & Freaks” is perhaps the best Japanese-language write up of the subject, and I encourage all viewers to read it to better understand this phenomenon.

While it sounds like YouTube is a victim in all of this, the fact is YouTube also has an interest in helping this process along…and not just because of the Censors within their own ranks. With thousands upon thousands of videos uploaded to YouTube daily, the supply of advertising space on the site is huge, which keeps the market value of advertising low. Reducing the supply of available advertising space means driving the market price of that advertising up…something YouTube would definitely be interested in.

Similarly, smaller independent YouTubers are harder to control and more likely to do or say something controversial, which upsets Advertisers. But big corporate channels don’t have that problem. And so the YouTube algorithm favors big corporate “family friendly” content while shutting out the smaller Creators, in order to keep the Advertisers happy.

In fact, YouTube may be going a step further in their desire to control their platform…by propping up YouTubers of their own creation. A YouTuber by the name of Jennelle Eliana has recently become wildly and inexplicably popular, getting thousands of views, likes, and followers seemingly out of nowhere. Many YouTube users have reported finding themselves automatically subscribed to Jennelle Eliana without having done so themselves.
実は、YouTubeは自身のプラットフォームをより直接的に管理するためにさらに一歩進めているのかもしれません・・・、Youtube運営側が自ら創ったユーチューバーを支援することによって・・・。というのも、最近「Janelle Eliana」という名前のアメリカ人ユーチューバーが、驚くほど早く人気になっています。短期時間にもかかわらず、異様に多くの視聴数や「いいね」、そして登録者数まで上がっています。多くのYouTubeユーザーがアカウントは何の確認・承諾なしに、自動的にJanelle Elianaのチャンネルと登録されたと述べました。

There’s too much to go into here and now, but in a nutshell it appears that YouTube is artificially generating Jennelle Eliana’s popularity…and given that YouTube is one big black box system, it’s certainly possible. But if it’s true, it would finally give YouTube total control over the ad space on their platform. And it would finally complete the transformation of YouTube from an open platform for the average everyman…into Cable Television 2.0.
話が長く成るので、今回は詳しい説明を割愛させてもらいますが、手短に言えばJenelle Elianaの人気は人工的に生じさせられている可能性が十二分にあります。YouTubeのアルゴリズムはブラックボックス・システムなので、視聴者の反応データを簡単に改ざんできます。でも、もしこれが本当の話であれば、YouTube上の広告スペースの完全な支配の最終段階の到達を意味します。そして、ようやくYouTubeの変化は完了されます。民主的ユーザー生成コンテンツのプラットフォームから、単なるケーブルテレビの第二世代に変化されるでしょう。

At the end of the story, once all the dominos have fallen, everybody has gained something. The Censors deplatform their targets. The Media weakens their competition. The Advertisers protect their brands. And YouTube drives the price of ad space up while reducing the risk of rogue users. The only party who loses in this scenario is you…the users and the Content Creators.

Of course, there will always be cases of demonetization that aren’t based on smear campaigns from the censors. Some Content Creators will take things too far on their own, and YouTube or Advertisers will respond on their own. But at the same time, the cycle of activist smears leading to Adpocalypse has happened too often to ignore.

So what do we do? In truth, the source of this problem is simple…YouTube’s near total monopoly over the video hosting space online. A monopoly that’s only made possible by the deep pockets of Google, or rather Alphabet Inc. And by the daily use and attention of us, the users and Content Creators.

The most painfully accurate thing said to me about YouTube was this: “the worst thing Google ever did is convince us that hosting video online was free”. At great expense, Google has provided us free space to host our videos, free services, and even free money in the form of the YouTube Partner Program. In exchange, they set our standards so high that no other company on Earth can possibly satisfy them.

Any competitor to YouTube will be unable to afford the same quality of service. So unfortunately, if we want to weaken Google’s grip on power we need to learn to settle for less.

PeerTube, a decentralized alternative we’ve promoted, does not offer advertising space or monetization for users. Individual instances need to pay for hardware or hosting, and for domain registration.

But what PeerTube does offer is true creative freedom and autonomy. No advertisers can complain about you, no YouTube staff can delete your channel. You and you alone control your experience online. That’s a price worth paying.

If you’re a Content Creator on YouTube, consider learning how to set up a PeerTube instance, or else creating an account on one that exists. If you’re a user, make the effort to seek your favorite Creators on alternative platforms, or encourage them to expand to those platforms if they haven’t already. For those who move to decentralized alternative networks, make the effort to support them financially if you can.

It won’t be easy, and it won’t happen overnight. But if real change is ever going to happen at all, it needs to start with you and me from the bottom up.

This was ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI, and until next time…MACHIUKENASAI.


(1) 2018/08電気通信事業法及び国立研究開発法人情報通信研究機構法の一部を改正する法律(平成30年法律第24号)の施行に伴う省令の制定について(NICT法の一部改正に伴う識別符号の基準及び実施計画に関する規定整備関係)

(2) 2018/09/26国立研究開発法人情報通信研究機構の中長期計画の変更案に対するサイバーセキュリティ戦略本部の意見(案)

(3) 2018/11/01国立研究開発法人情報通信研究機構法附則第八条第四項第一号に規定する総務省令で定める基準及び第九条に規定する業務の実施に関する計画に関する省令案に係る意見募集の結果新旧対照表

(4) 2019/01/25国立研究開発法人情報通信研究機構法(平成11年法律第162号)附則第8条第2項に規定する業務の実施に関する計画の認可申請の概要

(5) 2019/02/01IoT機器調査及び利用者への注意喚起の取組「NOTICE」の実施https://www.nict.go.jp/press/2019/02/01-1.html

(6) 2019/02/14IoT機器調査及び利用者への注意喚起の取組「NOTICE」で使用するIPアドレスについて
(7) 2019/06/28IoT機器調査及び注意喚起の実施状況について



ポートスキャンを仕掛けているのは、ポート番号で21(FTP)、22(SSH)、23(TELNET)、80(HTTP)、443(HTTPS)、その他では 8000、8080 です。単発ではなく、短時間に集中的&連続的にスキャンしているようです。

Let’s imagine a scenario together. Imagine a world where, in a crowded urban metropolis, nobody locked their doors. As a result, burglaries are skyrocketing. This problem could easily be solved by everybody just locking their doors, but for some reason they don’t.

Why not? Maybe they’re too lazy, maybe they’re stupid, or maybe their just don’t believe they’ll be targeted. Whatever the reason, the problem isn’t getting better.

The police, of course, are overwhelmed. They put out notices asking people to lock their doors, but it doesn’t have much impact. So finally, they come up with a more extreme plan.

The police hire people to go door to door in every neighborhood, testing each door to see if it’s locked. If they find an unlocked door, they enter the house and leave a warning note. They then write down a list of all the addresses that don’t lock their door and keep it at the police station.

Naturally, this plan has one problem…entering somebody’s house without permission or a warrant is illegal. But the police solve that by having the government pass a law that makes it temporarily legal for the police to perform “specified access” to unlocked houses.

Does this sound like a terrible idea filled with potential for abuse? We agree! Unfortunately, Japan’s NICT does not.

The National Institute of Information and Communications Technology announced a plan in February of this year, called NOTICE…”National Operation Towards IoT Clean Environment”. NOTICE is a plan to improve the national level of IoT security. Unfortunately, many hundreds (if not thousands) of IoT devices are either poorly secured, or not secured at all. Many use default passwords, which makes them easy targets for malicious programs like 2016’s Mirai virus.
情報通信研究機構(NICT)が今年の2月に、「NOTICE」という計画を実行しました…”National Operation Towards IoT Clean Environment”。NOTICEは日本国内のIoTセキュリティーを高めるための計画です。残念ながら、多くのIoTデバイスにはセキュリティ上の脆弱性があり、さらにはセキュリティー対策自体が全く施されていないデバイスすら存在します。多くのデバイスはパスワードがデフォルトのまま設定されており、ウィルスにとっていいカモになっています(例えば2016年のMiraiウィルス)。

The NICT wants to encourage better security practices, which is good. Unfortunately their method of doing this is very bad. Under NOTICE, the NICT plans to run brute-force dictionary attacks on all IoT devices in Japan, testing default passwords to try and access them. If the attack is successful, they will notify the owners and advise them to change their password. It’s also likely they’ll be keeping records of which devices were successfully accessed.

Of course, this plan had one problem…the type of brute-force attack the NICT wants to use under NOTICE is considered unauthorized access, and is illegal under Japanese law. Which is why, in 2018, the Japanese government created amendmends to the Telecommunications Business Law and the National Research and Development Institute of Information and Communications Technology Law. These amendments stipulated a class of “specified access” as an exception to unauthorized access, essentially making it temporarily legal for the NICT to perform unauthorized access to private networks.

There are thankfully some limits on the NICT’s new “specified access” powers…for now. Legal targets are limited to those that meet the criteria set forth by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The NICT’s brute force attacks will employ only passwords less than 8 characters, those used in past cyber attacks, and those using only identical or consecutive characters. Sadly, these limitations are of little comfort. More on that later.



While the goal of improving Japan’s network security is commendable, the NICT’s plan under NOTICE may have a number of unintended consequences.

Firstly, legalizing government hacking of private networks opens to door to abuse by other branches of government. We already know that CIRO and the Japanese Directorate for Signals Intelligence are monitoring the Japanese internet, and cooperating closely with America’s NSA. There’s potential that they might be tempted to deputize the NICT to perform “specified access” to a private network on their behalf, protected by the legal shield created by the 2018 amendments.

The ability of the NICT to successfully contact the owners of private network to warn them is also an issue, as is the likelihood that those owners might not notice (or might ignore) this contact. As a result, the NICT will end up maintaining a list of unsecure IoT devices in Japan…a list that will itself become a target for hackers, who will have faster and easier access to victims. In this way, the NICT might make Japanese networks less secure rather than more.

Finally, the limits on the “Specified Access” exemption is no guarantee of limited powers. The Japanese government has a long history of creating “temporary” or “limited” powers, and then expanding or extending them after the fact when they find a reason to do so. As far as the Japanese government is concerned, a promise and 100 yen couldn’t buy a can of coffee.

To be clear, the goal of improving IoT security is a good one, and we certainly encourage all users of IoT devices to stop using default passwords. One visit to Insecam-dot-org and you’ll see why it’s dangerous to leave network devices unsecured. But the plan under NOTICE is not a good solution, and will very likely create more problems than it solves.

So what can we do about it? Well, one thing network operators can do is block the NICT from accessing their networks entirely. In fact, the NICT has helpfully provided a list of the IP addresses they’re using under NOTICE, and which ports they intend to scan. If they find some or most of their “specified access” attempts being blocked outright, that might send a message to the NICT about the popularity of NOTICE.

A list of these IP addresses, as well as a timeline of information about NOTICE, are provided above. Please feel free to use this information as you see fit.

And for the love of God, please change the passwords on your IoT shit.

アノニマスの見解 Ep.15:”EUNOMIA”又は”私は如何にして心配するのを止めて社会信用システムを愛するようになったか”


Hello everyone. And welcome to another episode of “ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI”. And a very exciting episode it is, because we’ve got an insider leak of some interesting info about a project called “EUNOMIA”, in coordination with the Fediverse’s own “Free Speech Axis”.

Long time viewers of this series might remember Episode 5, where we talked about Mastodon, GNU Social, and Plemora. In particular, you might remember a man by the name of Gargron, also known as Eugen Rochko. He’s going to be important to this story, so you might want to go watch that episode if you don’t know why he’s important.
このシリーズの長年のファンは「マストドン、GNUソーシャル、Plemora」についての第5話を覚えてるかもしれませんね。特に、「Gargron」(別名Eugen Rochko)という男も思い出すかもしれないですね。彼がこの話にとって重要なので、新登録者はぜひ第5話をご覧下さい。

But first, let’s talk about “Fake News”. Fake News is a really big problem these days, if you listen to media and politicians. Spies, extremists, and scammers are all supposedly using the internet to spread fake stories and trick the public into believing the wrong information.

And of course, the same media companies and politicians are ready…eager, even…to offer solutions to the problem. Journalists name and shame online personalities. Silicon Valley companies like Facebook and Twitter routinely engage in purges of “fake news” from their platforms, silencing or even banning accounts that spread it. How exactly they discern fake news from truth remains a mystery, unfortunately…

Some governments, notably China, have taken stronger measures. China’s infamous “social credit” system does a lot of things, but apparently one thing that can reduce your national loyalty score is “spreading fake news”…of course, the Chinese government gets to decide whether news is fake or not. The military government in Thailand, meanwhile, has been very active in using its own “Computer Crime Act” to arrest its critics, claiming they spread “false information”.

But the civilized nations of the Western world insist that they’re different from their totalitarian counterparts. Their campaign against fake news is sincere, and in the best interests of democracy. Interestingly, though, they have little to say about the fake news they participate in creating. Fake news like the Covington High story, where multiple supposedly reputable American news outlets spent days reporting flat-out lies about a group of high school boys, while Twitter looked the other way as outrage mobs led by celebrities harassed and threatened children. Thankfully the truth was livestreamed, but where was their concern for fake news then?

Then there’s the RussiaGate scandal…two years of politicians and media companies insisting that US President Donald Trump was a secret Russian asset, until an investigation disproved it as conspiratorial nonsense. No matter one’s opinion on the man, these are reckless and irresponsible lies.

These are only two examples, but there are more…far too many to go into here. And in none of these cases do the media or politicians admit responsibility. Yet they want to tell us what news is fake or real?

The reality is, no matter where you go, its not uncommon for the authorities to say one thing and do another. And the unilateral solutions they impose always seem to create more problems than they fix.

And that brings us to our main topic, “EUNOMIA”…an EU initiative to create a software solution to solve the fake news problem. …yeah, I think you can see where this is going.

From the European Commission’s own website, they describe EUNOMIA as “a fully decentralised, intermediary-free and open-source solution for addressing three key challenges: which social media user is the original source of a piece of information; how this information has spread and been modified in an information cascade; and how likely it is to be trustworthy…EUNOMIA actively encourages democratic citizen participation in content verification by allowing voting on content trustworthiness and influencing the reputation of content generators and sharers”.

In other words, EUNOMIA is going to keep track of who said what, when, and where. It’ll track who shared that information, and with whom. Finally, it’ll host an online popularity contest to decide who’s telling the truth or not, and brand people with a number score based on the results. I think it should be clear how much of a bad idea that is. It sounds worryingly close to Chinese social credit.

But who cares, right? It’s just the EU, and Facebook and Twitter are already heavily censorsed hellscapes. Well, yeah…about that. Remember when we mentioned Mastodon and Gargron? Guess who’s on the list of contributors to the project…getting paid 63,290 euros to participate? Eugen Rochko, Gargron himself.
でも大した問題ではないでしょう?EUの問題ですし、FacebookやTwitterはすでに監視されてる。いえいえ、実際はその点には面白い話があるのです…動画の冒頭でマストドンとGargronさんについて述べましたよね?6万3千ユーロの引き換えに、誰がEUNOMIAの開発に参加しているのでしょうか?Eugen Rochkoさん、Gargron本人です。

Why would the creator of Mastodon be working on EUNOMIA? Maybe because Mastodon, and the wider Fediverse, is intended to be its testbed. In fact, the EUNOMIA project description itself clearly states that it is “ideal for evaluation on similarly open, decentralised and federated new social media networks”.

To be clear, the Fediverse…a decentralized federation of alternative social media services…is the place where people go to escape the censorship, authoritarianism, and surveillance of mainstream social media. It’s a place where they can speak freely and tell jokes without fear of being banned, or even arrested. What EUNOMIA proposes is to bring in the worst aspects of both mainstream social media and Chinese style social credit. No surprise it’s so unpopular.

Of course, the creators of EUNOMIA are quick to deny this. The project’s own Mastodon-dot-social account says it will “not in any way involve Mastodon social, and…will not involve anyone without their explicit consent”. All well and good, but it’s worth noting that we have no guarantee that this will always be true, or even if it’s true now.

Comparisons to social credit are also denied, since the project claims its purpose is “to assist social media users in determining trustworthiness of information”. In other words, it isn’t a central authority deciding what’s true, it’s just a tool to help other people vote on what they think is true. Personally, I don’t enjoy the idea of crowd-sourced social credit any more than the centralized variety. If anything, the outrage mobs and groupthink we’ve seen on Twitter makes me fear social credit by mob-rule even more.

But aside from that, there’s no escaping the reality that such a system would necessarily entail tracking and analyzing conversations, necessitating a panopticon-like surveillance of discourse across the Fediverse. Even if they claim that participation is voluntary, once the infrastructure is built, how easy would it be to just expand it after the fact? Or for other people to inherit the project and expand it later? This could especially be worrying to Japanese Fediverse instances, as these software tools will likely be localized and imported by certain characters if they prove successful in the EU.

Moreover, the idea of voting or scores to rate trustworthiness implies a system that discourages individuals making their own assessments about the truth, and instead blindly trusting the opinions of the majority. The creation of cliques and groupthink in such a system would be inevitable, and any search for truth would quickly be drowned out.

Apparently I wasn’t the only one who had these concerns, because somebody inside the EUNOMIA project decided to leak chat logs from their internal discussions. And some of the things they have to say only deepen my concerns.

For one, EUNOMIA will likely involve datamining instances via public APIs. No surprise, given datamining firms like SYNYO GmbH are key members of the project. They claim it will be opt-in and anonymized, but given the volume of data they’d likely need to build their models, its hard to believe that promise will last long. As for anonymisation, studies have shown how easy it is to re-identify users from aggregate datasets.
まず第一に、EUNOMIAはインスタンスの公開APIを使ってデータマイニングを行うそうです。「SYNYO GmbH」というデータマイニング企業がプロジェクトに参加するので、驚くほどではない事実です。収集はオプトインのみ、個人情報は匿名化されると言われますが、統計模型を築くために大量のデータが必要だと思います。自主的参加が足りない場合、その約束を守れるのでしょうか?そして匿名化について、データ匿名性を奪うのは意外と簡単だということを調査は示しています。

Secondly, EUNOMIA appears to be using some very questionable sources as reference for their models…namely the New York Times and Facebook. Remember, the NYT was central to spreading both the Covington High lie and the RussiaGate hoax. And Facebook has repeatedly been exposed as a biased actor in the way it controls how information trends on its platform. Hardly credible experts on identifying fake news when they couldn’t even identify their own.
第二に、EUNOMIAは統計模型を築くには信頼性に疑問のある情報源を利用している。特にNew York TimesとFacebook。忘れないてはなりません、New York Timesはコビントン高校とRussiaGateのデマを広めることに最大の影響を与えました。そしてFacebookがトレンディング・トピックを歪曲していることがすでに発覚しました。自分で作ったフェイクニュースを発見できなければ、情報の信用性を究明する資格があるのでしょうか?

Lastly, they internally refer to criticism of the project as “paranoia”, downplaying the validity of concerns and showing a lack of self-reflection, or even an understanding of why the Fediverse reacts negatively to them.

Bottom line, given the people involved, the histories of behaviour, and the attitudes on display, there are a lot of red flags surrounding the EUNOMIA project. What we can do to avoid it or mitigate the damage it may cause isn’t clear, yet. But identifying the threat is a good first step. The leaked info is linked in the description. I’d also like to make a Japanese translation eventually.

Fake News does exist, and it can be a problem, but it’s not going to be solved by an app or an algorithm. Technological solutions cannot fix human problems, and trust scores do nothing to encourage critical thought. If the goal of EUNOMIA is to help people determine trustworthiness without defining it, then objective metrics shouldn’t be involved at all, no matter how democratic the process leading up to them. The only thing that can help social media users to seperate fact from fiction is critical thinking, common sense, and personal responsibility when both producing and consuming information. And if they lack those qualities, then no piece of software is going to save them.

To every member of the Fediverse, the answer is clear; Say No to Eunomia. And Eugen…if you really want to make the Fediverse a better place, consider donating your 63,000 euro bribe to a media literacy program instead.

This was ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI, and until next time…MACHIUKENASAI


Hello everyone, Chano-san here.

Welcome to the アノニマスの見解 PeerTube instance. I’ve spent the last week or so getting this set up, but it’s finally ready. So I thought I’d make a formal announcement along with an explainer video for just what the hell this thing actually is, and why I set it up.

First of all, what the hell is PeerTube?

If we refer to the project’s own About page, “PeerTube is a federated video streaming platform using P2P (WebTorrent) directly in the web browser. It is a free and open-source software, under the AGPLv3 licence.”

This might sound familiar to Bitchute users, and that’s because it’s essentially the same thing. Both Bitchute and PeerTube use WebTorrent to serve streaming video and distribute the burden of hosting.

So what’s the difference between Bitchute and PeerTube?

For comparison, think of Plemora or Mastodon versus Twitter. Twitter is a single company running a single service. Users need Twitter’s permission to make an account and communicate with others. Plemora/Mastodon, on the other hand, allow anybody to create a server (called an instance) which can communicate with all other instances running the same software. No permission is necessary.

YouTube or Bitchute are like Twitter; one company, one service, permission is needed. PeerTube is the alternative. Anybody can make a PeerTube instance, and it can communicate with all other instances running the same software. No permission is necessary.

Why did you create a PeerTube instance?

Recently, the internet has become an unfriendly place for free speech. And I’m not a fan of Google’s monopoly on video hosting, among other things. I was happy to diversify onto Bitchute when it appeared, but the developer has been slow to communicate changes, and the development of the platform is sporadic at best. The thought occurred that if Bitchute’s money dried up or the platform was taken down, we might not hear about it until after it was gone.

Ultimately, as much good as Bitchute did to create an alternative to YouTube, I realized I was still depending on a third party to be able to publish videos. And I’d rather have more direct control over the hosting and serving of my own content. So I decided to give PeerTube a try.

Are you still going to use YouTube and Bitchute?

Of course, all videos will still be going up to the usual platforms. This PeerTube instance is kind of an tertiary backup. YouTube might ban me, and Bitchute might go down, but the videos will all be available here no matter what.

Can I make an account and upload videos to your instance?

Right now, I’m afraid not. Server space is limited, and managing users is difficult. I’m not confident I can do a good job. So this is going to be a single-user instance for now. I might change my mind in the future, and I might make special exception for people I know, but registrations are currently closed.

My lust for cyber-shekels is my greatest weakness, though, so I’m considering uploading videos on request or even making accounts for people who throw money at me on Bitbacker. I’m a little hesitant to even suggest it, but on the other hand I doubt anybody will go for it anyway, so whatever.

Final Thoughts

The wave of censorship sweeping across the internet right now is made easier by the fact that most of the net is built on centralized services. A few companies and individuals hold the power to decide if information can exist or not.

Alternatives have popped up…Bitchute in response to YouTube, Gab in response to Twitter, but many of them fall into the trap of simply being another centralized service. If we want to innoculate the internet against censorship, it’s important to decentralize as much as possible. PeerTube is, in my opinion, the best decentralized alternative to video hosting right now. And while this instance is just a tertiary backup for now, it’s my hope that one day software like PeerTube will be the standard for a free internet.

For Japanese users, I’m sorry to say that PeerTube hasn’t beeen localized into Japanese yet. Though we might do something about that in future. And for mobile users, good news…there is a PeerTube viewing app called “Thorium” that’s still in development, but otherwise pretty usable.

Anyway, look forward to more content here, on YouTube, and on Bitchute. And until next time…待ち受けなさい.

アノニマス:違法ダウンロード対象拡大に対抗する措置、「Onion Share」

“You shouldn’t break the law”.

For the most part, we can agree with that.
We also think you also shouldn’t create insane laws.

Since last year, the Japanese government has been aggressively trying to restrict Communications Secrecy and Freedom of Expression on the Internet. In April 2018, the government partnered with NTT Communications to monitor communications and block access to certain websites, violating Article 21 of the Japanese Constitution. In response, we helped to provide a Japanese version of the Onion Browser for iOS.

Then, in August of the same year, the government proposed allowing rights holders of copyrighted works to use Denial-of-Service attacks against suspected pirate sites, a reckless expansion of corporate power. In response to that, we announced the release of the Japanese version of Signal, an encrypted communications tool.

But as expected, the Japanese government has continued to expand its power without any concern for the negative consequences. In early 2019, the Agency for Cultural Affairs proposed expanding the scope of the Copyright Act, which only covers music and video, to include comics, photographs, and all copyrighted written material as well. To be clear, the Copyright Act is the law which treats illegal downloading as a criminal offense. Those arrested can face 10 years in prison.

This law is already excessive to begin with. But expanding its scope to cover photographs and written works makes it significantly worse. The simple act of downloading a photograph from a blog and posting it on social media, or copy-pasting the content of a news article would become a criminal act. The Cultural Council’s Subcommittee on Copyright has even explicitly stated that merely taking a screenshot would be considered criminal copyright infringement.

These things are daily activities for Internet users, and making them serious crimes is nothing short of criminalizing use of the Internet itself. The Japanese government has made promises that these laws will only be used for serious and repeated copyright offenses. But the Japanese government has made many promises in the past.

When they used Penal Code Article 37 to justify violating Communication Secrecy, they promised it would only be limited to child pornography sites. When they expanded the use of Article 37 to include manga and anime pirate sites, they promised it would be limited in scope. Now they have expanded it to cover screenshots and the copy-paste function, and still they promise not to abuse power. Each promise was abandoned as soon as it became inconvenient. This time will be no different.

The government says these laws are necessary to protect the economy. But that is an obvious lie. Even publishing company executives have spoken out against the government’s plans, claiming that they did not wish to go this far. In spite of that, the government has been working hard to push these new laws, even going so far as to present slanted and misleading information to lawmakers to justify their case. The Agency for Cultural Affairs heavily edited their report to emphasise supporting opinions while minimizing or even omitting dissenting ones. In spite of the fact that positive opinions were in the minority, the report presented them as the majority.

If even the copyright holders do not support these laws, and the government has to manipulate information to support them, perhaps these laws aren’t meant to help the economy at all. It seems much more likely these laws will be used to justify more surveillance and information control by the government. Restricting the ability of people to copy and share information makes it harder to them to see through propaganda and discover the truth. Free expression and free information have always been the enemy of authoritarian control.

Fortunately, these proposals did not succeed. But only this time. They will be back, and it is necessary to prepare countermeasures against rising censorship of the internet. To that end, we have another software release to announce.

Earlier this year, we helped translate a program named “OnionShare” into Japanese. OnionShare is a file-sharing program that routes all data through the Tor network. Files are hosted on a temporary Hidden Service address, and can be freely uploaded and downloaded via the Tor Browser, all while bypassing surveillance and site blocking. OnionShare can be used privately between two individuals, or publicly to allow a file to be shared widely among many users.
今年の初めに、我々は「オニオンシェア」というソフトの日本語版を翻訳に協力していました。オニオンシェアはTorネットワークを通してデータを送るファイル共有ソフトです。共有されるファイルは一時秘匿サービス(Hidden Service)でホストされ、検閲や監視をすり抜けながら、Torブラウザでダウンロードすることができます。2人切りのユーザーの間にファイル共有の場合も、世界中の人々に広く共有する場合も、オニオンシェアは役立つことでしょう。

To use OnionShare in Japanese, it’s necessary to change the settings after installation. After downloading the program from this address, install the program and execute it. After OnionShare has finished connecting to the Tor network, click on the gear icon in the top right corner. Then choose 日本語 from the Language drop menu in the bottom left of the settings window and click Save. After you restart the OnionShare program, the UI will be changed into Japanese. We will release a more detailed user guide in the future, but this is enough for basic operation.
日本語でオニオンシェアを利用するため、インストール後に設定を変える必要があります。このアドレスからオニオンシェアをダウンロードしたら、インストールして実行して下さい。オニオンシェアは自動的にTorネットワークと接続します。接続が完了したら、右上の歯車アイコンをクリックします。そして設定画面の左下に、「Preferred language」ドロップメニューから日本語を選択し、「Save」をクリック。次にオニオンシェアを再起動する時に、UIは日本語になります。いずれ、もっと詳しいユーザーガイドを発行したいと思いますが、とりあえず基本操作にはこれで十分でしょう。

Previous software releases work together very well with OnionShare. The Tor Browser for PC or Android, or OnionBrowser on iOS, can all access an OnionShare address. And with Signal, even sharing a link to an OnionShare address can be done secretly.

This is not the end of our work. We will continue to translate and distribute privacy protecting software as long as Communication Secrecy is under threat. As to the Japanese government, we urge you…stop making these stupid fucking laws. Please.





日本人に自己弁護をする機会を与えずに、日本のマンガとアニメ産業を脅かすなんてひどい、と我々は思ってます。だからこそ我々は英文で、日本の人々がOHCHRまで送れるために、同文の手紙を作りました。OHCHRはWordドキュメントファイルのみを受け入れますので、このファイルをダウンロードして、あるいは内容を自分が作ったWordファイルにコピペして、そしてこの問い合わせメールアドレスまで送って下さい: crc@ohchr.org


To whom it may concern,

I am writing to with regard to the Draft Guidelines on the implementation of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (OPSC). I would like to preface my submission by praising the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) for working to oppose child exploitation, child pornography, and child abuse in all its forms the world over. The victimization of children should be neither forgiven nor forgotten, and the good intentions of all involved in the OHCHR are worthy of praise.

That being said, I note with great dismay that the content of the Draft Guidelines contain some worrying language that I feel must be addressed. Namely on Page 14, Sections 56 through 59, which I will quote in their entirety below:

“56. Child pornography is defined in article 2 OPSC as “any representation of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities, regardless of the means used, or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes”. The qualification “by whatever means” reflects the broad range of material available in a variety of media, online and offline. It includes, inter alia: visual material such as photographs, movies, drawings and cartoons; audio representations; any digital media representation; live performances; written materials in print or online; and physical objects such as sculptures, toys, or ornaments.

57. The Committee urges States parties to prohibit, by law, child sexual abuse material in any form. The Committee notes that such material is increasingly circulating online, and strongly recommends States parties to ensure that relevant provisions of their Criminal Codes cover all forms of material, including when the acts listed in article 3.1(c) are committed online and including when such material represents realistic representations of non-existing children.

58. The Committee is of the view that “simulated explicit sexual activities” should be interpreted as including any material, online or offline, that depicts or otherwise represents any person appearing to be a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct and realistic and/or virtual depictions of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Such depictions contribute to normalising the sexualisation of children and fuels the demand of child sexual abuse material.

59. Moreover, for the reasons explained in paragraph 63, any representation of the sexual parts of a child, including realistic images of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes falls under the definition of this offence. Where it may be complicated to establish with certainty if a representation is intended or used for “primarily sexual purposes”, the Committee deems it necessary to consider the context in which it is being used.

While the intentions of the OHCHR are admirable, I am concerned that the potential ramifications of these Sections have not been thoroughly considered. While it is perfectly understandable, and highly admirable, to encourage member states to enact laws that protect the rights of children, it is not at all clear why the the OHCHR wishes to criminalize “virtual depictions” by the same standard as material that victimizes actual human beings.

My concerns are twofold: firstly, it diminishes the gravity of real human victimization by placing it on the same level are virtual representations of the same, which necessarily entail no actual human suffering. Secondly, it presents a very real danger of threatening hard-won rights in the areas of free speech and creative expression. The zeal of many to protect the vulnerable can often, unfortunately, cloud their judgment with regards to the long term ramifications of their decisions, and laws that restrict creative expression in entirely virtual creative mediums invite abuse by those with power to abuse their position.

Additionally, while Section 58 of the OPSC makes the definitive statement that “[realistic depictions of non-existing children] contribute to normalising the sexualization of children and fuels the demand of child sexual abuse material”, the OHCHR offers neither sources no evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, in 2012 the “Sexologisk Klinik” in Denmark authored a report for the Danish government on the subject of “animated child pornography”, in which they found that “there are no scientific studies to illustrate whether the possession of fictitious child pornography…may lead individuals to commit sexual assault on children”1. In other words, one of the core assumptions of this section of the OPSC would appear to be begging the question. Given that the OHCHR is seeking to criminalize otherwise perfectly legal acts that neither produce real victims as a primary effect, nor definitively inspire further victimization as a secondary effect, this is a worrying lack of due diligence.

It should be noted, in February of 2016 the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) held a review of the Japanese government’s efforts to implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. During this review, one of the issues for discussion between CEDAW and a delegation from the Japanese Government was “Banning the sale of video games or cartoons involving sexual violence against women ”2.

In response to this issue, Ms.Kumiko Yamada of the Japanese Women’s Institute Of Contemporary Media Culture made a powerful and admirable rebuttal3. While this rebuttal was written in Japanese, it has very kindly been translated into English by user “u/RyanoftheStars” in the KotakuInAction subreddit on Reddit4. While her comments were regarding the CEDAW, I feel that portions of her rebuttal are highly relevant to the OPSC, and to illustrate my point I wish to paraphrase some of her comments below:

I am absolutely in agreement that the protection of the rights of children is important. On the other hand, I think it should be carefully and seriously evaluated whether the measures taken to ensure those protections are valid ones or not. If we are asked to consider whether “Protecting Children’s Rights” requires us to “Ban the Media Virtually Depicting Child Exploitation,” then we must reply that that is an absolute “no.”

The so-called child exploitation in manga, video games, and other virtual media is a made-up thing and as such does not threaten the rights of actual people; therefore, it is meaningless in protecting the rights of children.

It goes without saying that the sexual abuse of actual real people is an actual violation of their rights and should obviously be forbidden by law, and that it’s necessary to protect and support victims. However, the figures in manga, video games, and other virtual media are creative fictions that do not actually exist, and thus this is not a violation of any real person’s human rights. We should focus on attacking the problems that affect real children’s human rights as quickly as possible.

It is noted that on the other hand when it comes to “media that depicts child exploitation” a certain segment of people are going to find it unpleasant. Nevertheless, to ban expression and commerce unilaterally based on feelings of whether or not something is unpleasant, or viewpoints on what should be moral, is a practice not to be condoned. The basis for feelings about what is or is not repulsive, and moral viewpoints, will differ based on the individual or their region and that culture’s segmented local society. The basis for the values in Local Society A and the basis for the values in Local Society B are not necessarily going to match. Therefore it stands to reason to suddenly use one local society’s standards as the standards of a society as a whole would only prompt a massacre of discord in conflicting values among the people in the greater society.

If we are to aim for the smooth operation of society as a whole, then there might be workarounds we can implement so that a certain type of person can avoid suddenly running into “unpleasant expressions” they don’t want to see, but these should be limited to regulations in zoning and circulation only. We should not ban any media that depicts “unpleasant expressions” under content guidelines that enforce moral standards unilaterally on society.

As stated above, we cannot say that banning the sale of virtual media that “depict child exploitation” is valid, even if we were to agree that the goal of protecting the rights of children is correct.

There is nothing to be gained from regulating fictional child exploitation. However, while you’re trying to fix the rights of fictional characters, you’re leaving the human rights of real children in the real world left to rot. As well, the entire reason we have a media genre such as manga that developed to take on themes such as the sexual exploitation of children came from an attitude to tolerate “drinking the pure and the dirty without prejudice.” It’s because we had the freedom to express our views and with that to express the view of a world of humans that live and die, that there are pure and wonderful things and dirty and nasty things mixed with each other.

As a final comment, I would like to address a point regarding the content of this letter. It may be the case that multiple submissions will be received by the OHCHR with identical or similar phrasing. While I’m certain this may create the impression that the submissions are insincere duplications, this could not be further from the truth. In fact, Sections 56 though 59 of the OPSC present an existential threat to the livelihood of a number of artists and industries in nations (primarily Japan) that produce fictional and virtual material that may very well fall under the jurisdiction of the OPSC. However, in spite of the global nature of the OPSC’s scope, the OHCHR has refused to accept submissions in any languages aside from English, French, and Spanish. This is highly discriminatory against people in multiple nations around the world who are unable to communicate in these languages, and are thus unable to speak in their own defence in spite of the fact that they are directly threatened by the OPSC’s overly broad definitions.

Towards that end, this letter has been created as a collective effort by concerned residents of Japan to help give a voice to the voiceless. I would hope that, in future, the OHCHR will accept public comment with the same breadth of scope that they use to impose their views on others.

Thank you.



1https://jm.schultzboghandel.dk/upload/microsites/jm/ebooks/bet1534/pdf/bet_1534_bind_II.pdf (p.196-198)




アノニマスの見解 Ep.14:国連ロリ権利高等弁務官事務所

Well…here we go again…

In the last ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI video, we talked about how the Censors try to impose their views on others by force. Back then it was through corporate power via Sony, but this threat has another vector…government power. But before we get into that, I’d like us all to do a thought experiment together. Are you ready? Let’s go:

Hey, have you guys ever seen those fucking SAW movies? There’s like eight of them, and they’re all about people being kidnapped and tortured. It’s basically snuff porn. Seriously, it’s some sick fucking shit. People who enjoy watching this are almost certainly dangerous people, and probably future psycho killers.

Listen guys, I think we can all agree that..ah..”such depictions contribute to normalizing the glorification of torture and fuels the demand of snuff material”. So even though kidnapping, torture, and murder are all already illegal, we ought to ALSO make it illegal for anybody to have “any representation of abduction, torture, or murder, regardless of the means used” including “visual material such as drawings and cartoons; audio representations; any digital media representation; live performances; written materials in print or online; and physical objects such as sculptures, toys, or ornaments”.

Obviously, this would mean outlawing an impossible number of creative works. But these things glorify crimes, so nobody should ever want to see that anyway. And if they do, they’re probably sick fucks and don’t need rights or protections anyway.

If that sounded incredibly stupid to you, then welcome to being sane. Unfortunately, it’s a very small club. And getting smaller every day…

In February of 2019, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) issued a draft guideline of the “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child”, which according to their website exists to prevent human trafficking, child prostitution, child pornography, and underage exploitation. Sounds good, right? Who doesn’t like protecting children?

In typical fashion for these types of authoritarian censors, however, the OHCHR is using a good thing everybody supports as leverage to force in a bad thing that helps nobody. In this case, the poison pill is page 14, section 56, where they define “child pornography” as anything and everything that virtually depicts sexually explicit images of non-existing children.

Why? Apparently because the OHCHR thinks loli/ero art is a gateway drug to real life child abuse. Obviously everybody is countering that idea with the argument for free expression, and its an important argument that needs to be made. But I’d like to examine our earlier thought experiment in more detail to take an entirely different approach.

Part of the reason for choosing the SAW movies, and the example of kidnapping and torture for the thought experiment, was because of the difference in peoples’ reactions. Obviously most people have a much stronger emotional reaction to the idea of children being hurt, and arguably with good reason…it’s just a normal human reaction. So when the idea of virtual child abuse is brought up, it usually causes a similar knee-jerk emotional reaction. But the same doesn’t usually happen with depictions of violence in general, even sadistic violence like the kind you’d see in SAW. Most people would agree in the abstract that torture is bad, but the reaction is almost never as visceral. If you tried to ban all SAW movies for glorifying torture, I imagine you’d have a hard time getting as many people on board with the idea.

This is because the reaction is, fundamentally, an emotional one. And while our emotional reactions have their places, they cannot and should never be the basis for the creation of law. For laws to function well, they need to be logical principles that can be applied equally and fairly to all situations.

Once we strip away the emotional language of this Optional Protocol, what are we left with? “Virtual depictions of illegal acts that harm non-existing people must be illegal, on par with the real-life acts they depict”. If we apply this principle equally to all situations, we would end up with absurd results. Practically speaking, almost every work of fiction from any time period would be illegal by this standard. If this principle is meant to apply in the case of child exploitation, why not kidnapping? Why not murder, or torture? If the law isn’t going to be fairly applied across the board, should it even exist?
感情的になった言葉をはぎ取れば、選択議定書の原則はこれです:「架空の存在しない犠牲者が生じる犯罪行為の描写は、実際の犯罪と同じ基準で犯罪と見なさなければならない」 この原則を全ての状況に平等に当てはまれば、ばかげた結果が生じます。事実上、人類の歴史の中で作られた創作物は犯罪になるでしょう。この原則はバーチャル児童虐待の場合に適用するなら、何故バーチャル誘拐の場合に適用しないのでしょうか?また、バーチャル殺人やバーチャル拷問の場合は?全ての状況に平等に当てはまることができなければ、この法は本当に存在するべきなのでしょうか?

Supporters of the Optional Protocol might argue, as the OHCHR does, that virtual depictions of crimes would normalize them, and fuel demand for real crimes. My only response to this is…prove it. I don’t believe that this is true, and if the OHCHR isn’t offering any evidence to back that up I’m going to accuse them of begging the question. On the contrary, I’m going to argue that the majority of people are perfectly capable of understanding the difference between fantasy and reality. Our media and popular culture is saturated with fictional acts that would be illegal in real life, but media spotlight fallacy aside, people are not rushing out to commit these same crimes in massive numbers.

In spite of this, the Optional Protocol urges countries to enact laws that would criminalize otherwise legal activities that produce no victims. Where these laws might run against legitimate creative freedoms, the Protocol “deems it necessary to consider the context in which it being used”…an open invitation for the creation of censorship boards, further centralizing more power in fewer hands.

The sad thing is, this isn’t even the first time the UN has tried shit like this. Back in 2016, another UN Committee tried to ban the sale of manga or anime depicting sexual violence against women. This attempt was denounced by Kumiko Yamada of the Japanese Women’s Institute Of Contemporary Media Culture, and the most salient point she makes could just as easily apply to this current round of attempted censorship:

“…when it comes to manga that depicts sexual violence a certain segment of people are going to find it unpleasant. Nevertheless, to ban expression and commerce unilaterally based on feelings of whether or not something is unpleasant, or viewpoints on what should be moral, is a practice not to be condoned. The basis for feelings about what is or is not repulsive, and moral viewpoints, will differ based on the individual or their region and that culture’s segmented local society…Therefore it stands to reason to suddenly use one local society’s standards as the standards of a society as a whole would only prompt a massacre of discord in conflicting values among the people in the greater society…there might be workarounds we can implement so that a certain type of person can avoid suddenly running into “unpleasant expressions” they don’t want to see, but these should be limited to regulations in zoning and circulation only. We should not ban any manga that depicts “unpleasant expressions” under content guidelines that enforce moral standards unilaterally on society.”

We couldn’t agree more.

Of course, the real question is…what can we do about it this time? Well, fortunately the OHCHR is accepted comments from now until March 31st. Unfortunately, and very typically for these people, they refuse to accept any comments that aren’t in English, French, or Spanish. This is spite of the fact that the rules they seek to create will impact people the world over.

We decided that it was unfair to threaten the livelihood of people without giving them the opportunity to speak for themselves. So we’ve created a form letter for Japanese viewers to download, copy, and send to the OHCHR’s contact e-mail address. The OHCHR will only accept Word documents, so download our document file or copy-paste the text into a Word document of your own and attach it to an e-mail sent to this address.

If you’re an artist or a fan of manga, anime, or doujin culture in Japan, we urge as many of you as possible to participate. Without a strong reaction from the public, laws like these can easily slip through before you know it. And once they become written into law, they’re almost impossible to remove.

It’s also wise to prepare for the worst case scenario. Remember that centralization is the tool of the Censor. The decentralized privacy tools we promote are an important line of defense to preserve both creative and individual freedoms online. Don’t just wait for the government to save you, start taking action to defend your own freedom today.

And the next time somebody tries to create laws to protect the rights of fictional people, let’s remember that they may have an ulterior motive. If a law is truly needed, it should exist to protect the rights of real human beings. Any law that tries to go beyond that doesn’t exist to protect you, but to police your thoughts and beliefs. And those types of laws should always be opposed.

This was ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI. And until next time…MACHIUKENASAI.

アノニマスの見解 Ep.13: 「グローバルの基準」という嘘

Hello again everyone. And welcome back to ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI.

I apologize for another long delay. Our “OFFLINE” game needed a lot of time to organize, so there was less time to focus on this series. Congratulations to the winner in Tokyo, by the way. Osaka and Nagoya are still unfinished, so if you’re in the area and want to participate, please do. I’ve also been working on the “No One Cares” series over on Bitchute, which is unfortunately English-only. I wish I could translate those into Japanese, but they’re more casual videos so it’s difficult to transcribe and translate on my own. But recently, a new topic appeared that I thought needed to be addressed, so we created this video. This is a topic related to the foreign world, but it affects Japan so Japanese people need to hear about it. But first we need to start with some background.
投稿が遅れて、また頻度が低すぎて申し訳ございません。「OFFLINE」のゲーム管理に時間がかかってしまいまして、ここ最近、動画制作に集中できませんでした。そして東京の勝者の方、おめでとうございます。大阪と名古屋はまだ解決されていないので、該当地域の方は是非ご参加下さい。Bitchute独占シリーズ「No One Cares」も時間がかかるけど、残念ながらそれは英語のみです。訳すことができれば良かったのですが、台本なしの動画なので自分で翻音して訳す時間がありませんでした。しかし最近、何としてでも取り扱うべきトピックがあらわれたので、この動画を作りました。このトピックは海外に関するものですが、日本にも影響を与えるので、日本の皆さんがこれについて知っておくべきことだと判断しました。というわけで、まずはこのトピックの背から説明することにしましょう。

Starting in mid-October 2018, a number of Japanese adult game makers publishing through Sony on the Playstation 4 announced that some of their content would either be censorsed, or outright removed. On October 13th, Developer XSeed Games announced that the “Intimacy Mode” from Senran Kagura Burst Re:Newal needed to be removed from the PS4 version of the game, leading to delays. Later on Octorber 15th, website “OneAngryGamer” reported that this was due a new policy by Sony Interactive Entertainment that restricted fanservice content.
始まりは10月中旬、ソニーを通してPlaystation 4向けに発売している多くの日本のアダルトゲームメーカー各社が、自社コンテンツの検閲、または徹底的な削除を発表しました。10月13日に、パブリッシャーのXSEED Gamesは「スキンシップモード」をゲームから削除するため、PS4版『閃乱カグラ Burst Re:Newal』の発売日を延期すると発表しました。10月15日に、ゲームニュースサイト「OneAngryGamer」がその削除はソニーのアダルトコンテンツに対する新しい政策によるものだと報告しました。

From there, the news got worse. In late October, it was reported that all PS4 versions of “Nora to Oujo to Noraneko Heart” had their fanservice scenes lazily and obviously censored not only in the Western release, but the Japanese release as well. Furyu’s “Yuragi-sou no Yuuna-san” had its fanservice scenes similarly censored across all releases. In early November, it was reported that adult-oriented features in the PS4 version of “NekoPara” were being removed while Switch and PC versions remained unchanged.

It wasn’t until early December that SIE Japan president, Atsushi Morita, commented on the policy, stating that “it’s simply a matter of matching global standards. As for the freedom of expression… we have to think about what might be unpleasant for children and shield them from those things while also thinking and assessing ways to find a balance”. A particularly confusing comment, given that none of the above listed games were targeted at children, nor likely be to be bought or played by them, barring highly irresponsible parents.
12月上旬になった初めて、ソニー取締役盛田氏はその成人向けコンテンツの政策についてコメントしました:「表現規制に関してはグローバルの基準に合わせただけ。表現の自由と子供への安全とのバランスを考えると難しい問題であるとは考えている」 意味不明なコメントですね …以上のゲームは子供向けの作品ではありません。その上、子供がこのゲームを買って遊ぶ可能性は低いと思われます(無責任な両親でなければ)。

Compouding this issue is the fact that developers of Japanese games now need to submit their games for inspection and approval through SIE’s headquarters in America. In English. And not just for Western releases; all games, even Japanese language games for the Japanese market. This is a punishing move for many smaller studios, some of which will have little or no English ability. Combined with the censorship policy, this will have the effect of discouraging ecchi and ero games on the PS4 globally, creating financial stress for a lot of companies, and for no real reason.

Needless to say, most Japanese fans reacted with anger and disappointment, many asking themselves why this was happening. Some might blame the 2020 Olympics, and it’s certainly true that many Japanese businesses and politicians want to sterilize Japan’s image ahead of the event. But the reality is, Sony and Japan may have found themselves caught up in a culture war they don’t fully understand.

What many Japanese people might not know is that the Western world, particularly the English speaking internet, is in the middle of a culture war right now. There’s far too much to talk about on this topic than can be accurately summarized. Any number of good videos, blogs, and articles have been written on the subject, nearly all of them English, and there just isn’t enough time to translate them all…even though I wish I could. So for now, a very brief and incomplete summary will have to do.

One side of this war is the so-called “Social Justice Warriors” or “SJWs”, though for my purposes I’ll just call them the Censors. These are people who obsess over race, gender, sexuality, hate speech, and political correctness in all things at all times. These people have always existed, but in recent years they’ve become more aggressive and authoritarian, trying to force their vision of a better world on everybody around them whether they like it or not. Many of these people are activists or NGO workers, but a good portion also work in big tech firms and media, whether mainstream or digital.
内戦の片側に、いわゆる「SJW」すなわち「ソーシャル・ジャスティス・ウォーリアー(Social Justice Warrior)」と呼ばれる「活動家」が存在します、でも今回のトピックのために以下「検閲屋」と呼びます。この人たちは常に人種、性差、性的、ヘイトスピーチ、そして社会正義が気になって仕方ない。こういう人たちが常に存在していましたけれど、最近はいつもより攻撃的、そして権威主義的になってしまっており、よく自分の意見を他人に押し付けてしまっています。多くの「検閲屋」は活動家またはNGO関係者ですが、アメリカの大手テック企業またはマスコミ(主流もデジタルも)に対して影響力を持つ人々もいます。

The other side lacks a catchy name I like, so we can either call them the Shitposters or the Free Speech Axis. These are people who like the idea of free speech, and want the freedom to speak openly and post content online, even offensive or controversial content. Most people associate this with imageboard culture, which is at least partly accurate. To the Shitposters, hurt feelings or political correctness are not a good enough reason to censor or restrict free expression, and they’ll be happy to oppose that censorship wherever it appears.
「検閲屋」から通路を隔てて向かいの人々には心を引く名前がないですが、「クソカキコ野郎(Shitposters)」あるいは「言論自由連合(Free Speech Axis)」と呼んでもいいでしょうか、この人たちは言論の自由に賛成です。そしてネット上で自由に話し、情報を共有したい方です(攻撃的および論争の的な言論も含めて)。「ネット掲示板文化」と同じように考えられ、それは部分的に正しい。「クソカキコ野郎」によれば、傷ついた感情やポリコレは検閲や言論の統制を正当化できない。検閲システムがどこに現れても、彼らはそのシステムを転覆させようとします。

Between these two sides there is an ocean of largely indifferent, politically neutral people who don’t care about free speech or political correctness. They usually have few strong opinions, and just go with the flow, giving them very little influence in this struggle.

Unfortunately, as mentioned before, the Censors have influence in tech and media, which they use to push narratives that suit their ideology. Whether it’s pressuring YouTube and Twitter to ban certain types of content or using smear tactics to misrepresent people in the media, the Censors try to silence and marginalize people who criticize them or their ideology. Recent tactics include “Deplatforming”, where angry mobs pressure platforms into kicking a person off, whether online or off. Even worse, there’s Financial Deplatforming, where the same mobs try to cut their target off from any income. This can include getting people unjustly fired from their jobs, or getting their online ad revenue cut off. It’s also very common for them to associate their critics with the so-called “alt-right”, calling everybody a racist and a Nazi, no matter how nonsensical the accusation is in some cases.

What does this have to do with Japan? The Censors HATE Japanese games and anime, particularly fanservice games with ecchi or ero content. This isn’t just a matter of taste and different opinions to these people, either. To them, games and anime are misogynistic or sexist, and thus nobody can be allowed to enjoy them. The Free Speech Axis, on the other hand, usually likes games and anime. Even the ones who don’t, they believe in free speech enough that they wouldn’t want to censor them anyway.

When we think about all this, the changes in Sony’s policies become easier to understand. Sony Interactive Entertainment recently moved their headquarters to California, a state home to the same Silicon Valley tech giants that support Deplatforming and censorship. While Censors within SIE try to force their ideology on the business, outrage mobs, activists, and NGOs apply pressure from without. As a business, SIE will try to avoid controversy, and thus they’ll try to appease the Censors. The result? Exactly the sort of censorship we see now. Japanese developers being forced to censor their Japanese games, made for Japanese fans, according to the standards of self-appointed moral guardians in a foreign country. These are the “global standards” Atsushi Morita referred to…except they aren’t really “global” at all.
こういう情報を考えると、成人向けコンテンツに対するソニーの新しい政策に対する理解が容易くなることでしょう。SIE(Sony Interactive Entertainment)は最近、本社機能をカリフォルニア州に移転しました。検閲とdeplatformingに賛成なシリコンバレー大手テック企業と同じ州ですね。企業内の検閲屋が会社に意見を課しながら、企業外の激高した群衆、活動家、そしてNGOは圧力をかけます。企業としては、当然SIEは論争を避けようとします、つまり検閲家を鎮めようとするでしょう。その結果は?面前にある検閲政策です。日本のファンのために日本のゲームを作っている日本のゲームメーカーは海外の道徳的基準に従って自社のゲームを検閲しなければなりません。これが盛田氏が述べた「グローバルの基準」です。しかしながら、全く本当の意味での「グローバル」ではありません。

As we stated before, the majority of people are indifferent to this topic, and have no strong feelings about Japanese games, positive or negative. The Censors represent a fringe minority of opinion. But because they’re a very loud minority, with influence in tech and media, they can coerce the majority to follow their ideology. And Japanese media tends to echo the media overseas, so the same lies get copy-pasted into Japan without any critical assessment or alternative view.

The tragedy is, Japanese fanservice games and anime have a huge audience overseas. These fans don’t want anything censored, or changed from the Japanese version. They want Japanese developers to make Japanese games for Japanese audiences, then translate those games and share them with the rest of the world. Only Sony, and the Censors influencing them, are forcing these rules on everybody against their will.

So what can we do about it? First, this whole situation illustrates what we’ve said time and time again; centralization is bad. Large companies like Sony are vulnerable to pressure, and their monopoly control of their platforms mean a small group of people can enforce unpopular rules on everybody. If you are a Japanese game maker, big or small, avoid platform exclusives, ESPECIALLY on the Playstation. Some people might point out that Nintendo is being more reasonable than Sony, and this is true…for now. But Nintendo can change their policies in the future, just like Sony did.
では、私達に何ができるでしょうか? まずは、この状況は我々が繰り返し唱えたことを示します。集中制御化(centralization)は良くない。ソニーみたいな大企業は圧力に対して脆弱です。そしてプラットフォームに対する独占力のおかげで一握りの人々が恣意的なルールを施行できるようにします。大手であれ、中小であれ日本のゲームメーカーなら、特定プラットフォーム専用のゲームを作らないことをおすすめします、特にPlaystationは。任天堂はソニーよりマシだと言う人がいます、そしてそれは確かに事実です…今のところは。しかしソニーと同じく、任天堂も何時か将来ある時点で政策を転換することもないとは言い切れないでしょう。

If possible, you want to release on any many platforms as you can. But if you do have to focus on one platform, consider focusing on the PC. While Sony and Nintendo have total control over their platforms, PC games are much harder to block or censor. Supporting different operating systems is also helpful…a Japanese game maker that includes Linux support will win a lot of goodwill.

Even with PC, beware of centralized distribution platforms like Steam. Valve’s policy on adult content is notoriously inconsistent, and they’re currently in the process of banning games with high school settings and even demanding that games cut out characters that appear too young. Alternatives like GOG or Hat Rack are good, but it’s still unwise to trust any one platform. Distributing the game from your own website is the best way to avoid platform censorship, but ideally you want to put your games on as many different platforms as possible, including your own website to ensure your customers always have options.
PCで販売しても、Steamみたいな集中型配信プラットフォームには気を付けた方が良いでしょう。Valveの成人向けコンテンツ政策は一貫性のなさで有名です。現在、Valveは学校内の環境でのゲームを拒絶しているし、ゲームから若過ぎるように見えるキャラクターの削除を要求しています。GOGHat Rackみたいな代わりのプラットフォームはいいですが、実を言うと1つのプラットフォームを信用しない方が良いでしょう。自分のサイトで発売することは検閲を避けるための一番の方法ではありますが、できるだけ多くのプラットフォームで発売することをおすすめします(自分のサイトも含めて)。それによって顧客は豊富な選択肢を得ることができるでしょう。

Beware of Financial Deplatforming. The Censors have not been shy about attacking people who resist them, and if you trust payment platforms like PayPal, Patreon, or others they will come under pressure from activists. This is a more difficult problem to deal with, but the best answer is to use as many methods as possible. Use PayPal or Patreon if you must, but always have alternatives ready. While cryptocurrency isn’t a silver bullet for all your problems, it is a useful backup plan that’s difficult to censor. Accounts on BitFlyer or other exchanges are easy to make, and platforms like Bitbacker.io make it easier to crowdfund without having to worry about the Censors.

Avoid DRM and strict copyright policies. This is difficult for many Japanese studios to accept or understand, but while you might think that strictly controlling the flow of your work will protect your income, it will always have the opposite effect. It may seem counterintuitive, but if you build goodwill with your audience, they will reward you with success. Piracy is a market problem, not a criminal problem. If you make your work easy to find, easy to get, and reasonably priced, the majority will choose to support you.

Finally, and most importantly, don’t believe media or companies that badmouth your games. There are thousands of fans of your work across the globe who want to buy what you make, and it’s only a fringe minority trying to censor you. They have a loud voice because of their influence in media and tech, but they won’t support you even if you censor your games. There’s a saying in English…”Get Woke, Go Broke”…which is going to be very difficult to translate into Japanese. But basically, even if you pander to the Censors they will not buy your games. They don’t want to support you, they just want to put you out of business. So ignore them. Focus on your real fans, in all parts of the world, and remember that the Free Speech Axis always has your back.
最後、最も重要なことに、成人向けゲームの悪口を言う企業やマスコミを無視しましょう。世界中にあなたのゲームを買いたい多くのファンがいます、そしてそれを検閲しようとするのが非主流派だけです。その非主流派がテック企業やマスコミに対して不釣り合いな影響力を及ぼすけど、ゲームは検閲されても彼らは支援しません。英語ではことわざがあります…「Get Woke, Go Broke」…はっきり言ってこのフレーズは直接日本語に翻訳するのが難しいです。しかし一言で言えば、検閲屋に迎合してもユーザー達がゲームを購入してくれることはないでしょう。検閲屋は日本のゲームメーカーを支援する気はさらさらなく、倒産させたいだけなのです。だから彼らを無視すればいい。世界中にある本当のファンに集中することにしましょう。そして「言論自由連合」が最後まで応援するということを忘れないで下さい。

I’d like to give a shout out to YouTuber appabend, whose videos on this subject formed the bulk of my sources. He’s a good source of information, and you should subscribe to him if you want to hear more. His videos are in English, but any bilingual Japanese who can help subtitle his works, you’d be helping Japanese audiences a lot. Check him out.

Moving into the new year, the future of the internet is looking pretty rough. It’s going to take all of our efforts to carve out islands of free speech that can survive this wave of censorship, but if we keep our eyes open and plan ahead, together we can weather this storm.

This was アノニマスの見解, and until next time… 待ち受けなさい。

「OFFLINE」開幕、by アノニマス

Ours is an online world.

We work online.
We shop online.
We play online.

But sitting in front of the computer all day…

…isn’t always so good for you.

Sometimes it’s a good idea…

…to go OFFLINE

Go outside and get some fresh air…

Get some exercise…

…and play outside for a bit….

Towards that end, we’ve devised a game.

A game to exercise both mind and body.

Those who are interested, please find these clues placed in Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya.

The first person to solve the puzzle in each city will be awarded a special prize.

Well then, everyone…good luck.

35.645410, 139.701302

34.6978596, 135.4913056

35.16048, 136.90124

アノニマスの見解 Ep.12: 公開ブロックチェーンの落とし穴

Hello everyone, and welcome back to アノニマスの見解. It’s been a while since the last episode. My apologies for the long delay.

Unfortunately, the forces of censorship and surveillance didn’t take a break during this period, and there’s a lot to catch up on.

As you might already know, Site Blocking has taken a turn for the worse, with DoS attacks against alleged pirate sites being proposed in government run study groups. CIRO and the Directorate for Signals Intelligence haven’t gone anywhere, and there’s no shortage of new hardware AND software vulnerabilities that threaten your privacy.

But today, we’re going to talk about something different; cryptocurrencies, and how they related to the idea of financial privacy. But first, some background.

In June of this year, Coincheck, one of Japan’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, announced that it was suspending all trading in Monero, Zcash, Dash, and Auger… all currencies that are designed around the idea of user privacy. This was after the Financial Services Agency threatened stricter regulation of cryptocurrencies in Japan, strongly implying this was a response to government pressure.

Later that same month, the National Police Agency arrested multiple website operators for putting “Coinhive” into their websites. Coinhive is a distributed program that uses the computing power of website visitors to mine for Monero. But the NPA arrested them for violating a law banning computer viruses, implying they believed Coinhive to be a virus, even though there is no official judgement that this is accurate.

Finally, just last month, the National Police Agency announced their budget for 2019, including 2.7 billion yen to fight cyber threats. In that budget was a plan to purchase a blockchain surveillance system from overseas which would allow the NPA to gain a “bird’s eye view” of all transactions on the blockchains of major cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin and Ethereum, and possibly others. While no information on this system has been announced, there is a high possibility that this surveillance system will be “Elliptic”, one of the most well-known and popular blockchain surveillance tools.

Based on all of this news, it’s easy to understand that the Japanese government is struggling to assert control over the world of cryptocurrency in Japan. Privacy-focused cryptocurrencies like Monero are attacked, while surveillance tools to watch open blockchains are installed. The media talks about these measures as necessary to fight criminal money laundering. But as we’ve said in previous videos, empowering an authority to protect you doesn’t protect you from the authority itself. And government surveillance over individual finance can create many negative and unintended side effects.

Firstly, it’s important to remember that historically, total surveillance and central control over individual finance was not the norm. Whether through cash or barter, individuals have been able to privately exchange value for centuries. Regulations evolved over time as a means to counter abuse, but total surveillance and control over finance is a relatively recent development. However, many developed nations now favour credit or electronic payment systems over cash. Some countries, like India, have even tried to eliminate cash entirely, though often with disastrous results.

While a cashless society seems convenient, it comes with one very big problem; it takes power away from individuals and gives it to large, centralized institutions. With cash, two individuals can exchange value freely. I can invite my friend over for dinner, give him cash in exchange for something, and nobody can really interfere in our transaction. But with cashless electronic payment, the company running the system can monitor every transaction, and even deny transactions it doesn’t approve of. In a worst case scenario, it could even cut a user off from the system entirely. We saw a vivid example of this in 2010, when multiple banks and credit card companies arbitrarily and simultaneously cut Wikileaks off from donations. The power of centralized financial institutions to crush dissent is very real.

The threat of this power is two-fold; on the one hand, government pressure can have critics arbitrarily cut off from all finance. But on the other hand, the threat of being cut off also discourages dissent, and encourages self-censorship.

This is where cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin enter the picture. Being a peer-to-peer system, cryptocurrencies have no central control. Much like cash, they allow individuals to trade freely with each other. But unlike cash, cryptocurrencies allow these trades to happen at any distance. Two users in different countries can freely exchange value, as long as both are connected to the internet. Certainly there is the possibility of criminal abuse, just as with cash. But it also creates a check against the abuse of centralized power.

However, there is one massive Achille’s Heel to many cryptocurrencies; the public blockchain. The blockchain is a completely public ledger of every transaction on the network. Every detail of every transaction is recorded and shared publicly. This means your wallet address, your IP address, account balance, and every transaction are public knowledge. Not even bank accounts or credit card companies share this much information about their users.

So, while cryptocurrencies allow free exchange of value between individuals, the total panopticon of the public blockchain means the association between individuals can still be policed. Cryptocurrencies still need to be exchanged for cash via exchanges, and if the government can monitor every transaction on the blockchain, they can still order exchanges to cut off users they don’t like. If you donate Bitcoin or Ethereum to an opposition party, or a government critic, your account can be flagged by the authorities. If you use Bitcoin or Ethereum to pay for anything personal or embarassing, this can be used to blackmail you. Knowledge of perfectly legal but private activities can easily become a tool of control.

It’s worth noting, this isn’t only a problem from the government. A total public blockchain means anybody can find all of this information easily. But, with specialized surveillance tools like Elliptic, the speed and scope of government surveillance is a much bigger threat.

So what can we do about it? First, we need to understand that totally public blockchains are bad for individual users. Unfortunately, this means that using Bitcoin or Ethereum will always be a risk. We need to start using, promoting, and fighting to normalize cryptocurrencies that embed privacy into their infrastructure, like Monero, ZCash, Dash, or Augur. If you have cryptocurrency in public blockchains, consider moving some of it to more private cryptocurrencies. And finally, reject centralized corporate control and build markets and businesses that respect the privacy of their users. No one person can change the world alone, but each individual can change the way they do business. And if we all change together, then maybe the world can change with us.

This was アノニマスの見解, and until next time… 待ち受けなさい。