Well, welcome Rami Kurimo, co-founder of Puheenaihe media.
Moro. Moro. And today we're talking about a mysterious situation
that must have been resolved while filming this.
So you have these episodes, how many hundreds are there now?
So 681 or two I think are out. Yeah, tough.
I'm going to break 400 so these long episodes and short ones
of course, but two of those episodes,
long episodes, were censored according to one interpretation and you
even got into the Finnish media with that and then into this Swedish media
with the question of whether it was censorship.
And that theory was actually pretty good,
because this first episode was episode 570, it dealt with CSAM and cybersecurity
and the EU's right to monitor or oblige
platforms to remove various things, so What are the odds of that!
that this particular episode will be removed.
Yes, that arrangement was undeniably very special and precisely
because YouTube didn't offer any explanation for it at the beginning,
that just such an episode,
where this popular chat control
is critically examined, you could say legislation,
so just why it was then blocked in the EU area. Yeah.
Maybe then you'll give a description of what's really happening,
so another theme that's being discussed is this Hesarin Annastiina Kallius
wrote this essay,
in which the far-right media was condemned in harsh words and in honor of that we have Ivan
Puopoloja, 23 minutes and Roni Arvonen,
who was a guest here then of course Otto Juotte, these two, aka
Tuomas Enbusken,
this whole Finland rising and then with Jari Kuikanmäki, This fifth
power, where corona theories were talked about by the way.
Jari has written a book. But we didn't get there then.
Are we now saying that we're not far-right media?
We are clearly not the media
if Hesar's article doesn't mention us and Hesar's truth is the whole
truth. Yeah, this is a bit related.
So, we now have a giant publishing platform, YouTube,
which then coincidentally just when the CSAM topic is being discussed and important
legislative projects are underway,
removes two episodes and then on the other hand, this so-called
mainstream media here, when filming this, asks a columnist
to condemn it,
that like our media, but like this, the media of cups,
it even causes people to vomit,
have headaches and nausea.
That's sometimes the case,
but tell me now what really happens to those two episodes that disappeared
.
Yeah, you could actually start with this timeline,
so it might be easier to keep up.
So, when the EU voted on this chat room recently,
Leevi was in episode number 570 with the title EU and Cesam big brother
is watching you.
It was a joke and then for some reason the episode wasn't
viewable normally and someone had come to comment on Leivi's
X post. That was why it was an interesting arrangement,
because for Leivi and me, the episode was still
viewable on YouTube normally even though we were
logged in with the usernames of the topic in question
. And then when I started to investigate, I discovered
that this particular episode is still there, but the thing is that
it is blocked in EU countries,
although it was not for every user,
and then later I found out
that some users in EU countries could watch it,
but then when I used a couple of different tools like this one on the internet
,
which allow you to see whether the episodes are normally
visible or not,
then based on both of them, it seemed
that
this particular episode was blocked in EU countries and then in Finland too, if
you used a browser or a VPN,
you could watch this episode or actually both episodes
normally. Etc.
And what made this a special special arrangement was that
these episodes were still available on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
normally visible and and just that
when in this episode number 570 the topic is EU mass surveillance and
then this chat control is critically reviewed and the chat control
is being voted on or has been voted on and still someone could say
that in a slightly questionable way,
because in that one vote the majority of
the people who voted
voted against the chat, but despite that it went through.
Well it's like a voting technical thing and maybe you could go
through that later,
but in any case you voted on it like the way this chat now
or its chat control 1.
0 continuation was put through, then someone could say
that it itself was questionable,
so that arrangement arrangement is just time now I could say delicious. Yeah.
And before you continue this timeline,
this came to me, so you're also in the
insider circle there,
so you were probably there, this had probably been left out,
so you had gotten this story through both Iltasanomat and this Swedish media
quarter,
then by chance just when this got a little bit of international
media visibility,
then this thing started to become clear like this
after a long wait. Yes, it's quite possible that now it would be
that Iltasanomat reacted to it and then this Swedish quarter,
because that Mikko Ohtama had posted about this in English on X and that
Mikko's post had received over 800,000 views. It
's clearly of international interest.
Now, of course, it's a really opportune time and so I have to say thanks to Mik Mikko
for this.
oh but it is very possible or so first of all that it is it is very
likely
that the quarter reacted to this matter precisely because of the Mikon post and
then it is quite possible
that this matter progressed a little faster on YouTube
too because the quarter was also asked then from YouTube,
what is this you are asking or from Google, what is this?
Well but now we have some kind of hypothesis,
what really happened.
So the quite logical interpretation was that could it be a coincidence
that at the very moment when important votes are being made about the sea,
information that is critical of it is just blocked from EU
citizens, so yes it now sounds a bit like
what are the odds of that.
But apparently a benevolent interpretation can be found, that
there is a proper explanation for this, that is, from YouTube's own
procedures.
Yes, in my opinion, there is or so in this matter I think there is no
reason to doubt that the explanation that YouTube offered then
is not completely watertight. And the reason was
that in both of these episodes there were advertisements for our election podcast episode
. So they were for two different episodes,
but anyway, they had
advertisements for the Vaipod episode and then because of that, probably it was me, so
I had set the settings so that the episode contains political advertising,
even though the political definition of political advertising
on YouTube itself is a bit unclear and vague and there
seems to be a bit of a grey area,
as to what is political advertising and
what is not when it is commercial,
but anyway, I had put it on just to be sure.
Well, when I had put it on,
it didn't affect the issue and the episodes could be viewed normally.
But then last year, in the fall of 2025,
I don't actually mean a month,
but it was then that the situation had changed to the point
that, as I recall, YouTube said
that because legislation has come into force or is coming into force in the EU
, then all episodes
that contain political advertising or where the creator
himself has said
that they contain political advertising or clicked on that regulation,
then they will be blocked in the EU.
M and this in my opinion, well, first of all, this in itself was completely
understandable and logical, but then what you can say
that you could make sure of was
that when you cut out these ads,
YouTube has this internal tool
that you can use to cut out certain things from that episode.
Then when you took those ads out and then chose in the settings
that they no longer contain political advertising,
then immediately after that they were viewable with a direct link
and then a few hours later,
they were searchable again. Mhm.
So in itself, YouTube's explanation in my opinion was completely
logical.
What makes this happen, from our perspective, or
where is it, maybe the problem, or why did those
questions arise, was precisely
because, first of all, YouTube didn't know
what it was about at first. you have to wait a few days and then the fact
that because there, like from YouTube studio, there was nothing
like that, like it didn't clearly show that these episodes are now
blogged and then the setting where if you think about it, like the
setting that these episodes contain political mentions and advertising,
there wasn't any such announcement in there either,
that now because of that they are not visible in the EU area.
but you had to dig a little further into it. Yeah,
it was quite common for that softblock to do that episode
earlier. So this studio was also acquired by Ivan Puopalo,
so I was often on this weekly wisdom program,
which was mentioned in this Hesar essay
as a representative of this kind of media,
so there were undoubtedly quite a lot of such colorful words there,
which were suitable for the language of a civilized bourgeois,
so then YouTube made these soft bands,
so it removed that advertising revenue from Ivan and then since Ivan is
a capitalist,
it probably looked for them and pinged them and published them again.
And here there is a somewhat similar perverse phenomenon,
that yes, you notice that there is no illusion, that's it,
but it is still really annoying and really effective like
this soft band. But then it's maybe even more twisted,
in that in a way you don't really know where
this is available geographically,
but somewhere it's still rolling.
And then you might get a feeling that no one is interested and
so off topic, that maybe that's a bit well-intentioned.
Let's take Google's explanation here at face value,
then it's probably not worth
clicking on political advertising like that anymore,
that it's probably a bit like when you tell the bank
that you have political connections and do you have an account in America,
so that leads to quite a lot of bureaucracy
when you click on them. Yeah.
And so it's true that when I read the YouTube description,
what counts as political advertising,
it wouldn't necessarily have been fulfilled in them,
because in those places we weren't advertising the candidate ourselves,
but we were advertising an episode where this candidate was a guest.
of course that episode was a paid advertisement so
it was paid commercial cooperation but that's not when we then offer that
opportunity to all candidates equally. Yeah.
But it's just that because like Leivi, who makes these episodes,
no Leevi is not telling anyone
that you shouldn't vote for this or that in that episode.
That's just like offering an opportunity for discussion. Yeah.
We can actually go down that rabbit hole too.
So yeah this is like this now maybe a little warmer than this traditional
media and this Hesar essay, that you like this commercial cooperation,
that there's like it's quite good, that they say when someone gives you money,
then it says there that even if it's YouTube's own tag
commercial cooperation, now it has expanded so much
that it should always have a banner that is burned,
that this commercial cooperation is something else, just like in that video, it would be
like that hobby in the media industry and it is a bit unclear
what kind of whipping you will get
if you don't then submit to this.
On the other hand, if you have a traditional media
broadcast like YouTube, there is really
nothing like a hint
that left-wing causes are being promoted here or something like that,
but it is an interesting case that the Swedes are quite good,
that this quarter and this is yours, is it the guy
who made this post, from which it got there,
so are these influential parties in this freedom of speech
battle scene? Well Mikko Ohtama can say
that it is very strong, so you could say that it is
more active in the crypto scene,
but that it is, it has then taken a very strong stance on this,
both on crypto legislation and also on
legislation in general regarding privacy and then this is also related to
things like digital euros, digital IDs, and that type of thing.
Quarterly, I must say that it was a media
that I had never heard of before. For example, that yes,
but in that article it probably had an international focus
and it was very critical.
Of course, it picked up this first theory,
that is, that episode 570 dealt directly with CSAM and the EU's other
EU attempts to get to the level of private communication,
so those points were raised from there and I just remembered that they had
raised
that here it was discussed not so critically as such,
but so factually,
that in Finland, for example, there are these fact-checker-type
organisations that get to join this alliance and could it be
that these, in a way, who monitors the monitors, so they didn't go into
a bit of a rabbit hole,
that there could be these parties here, these parties could be
behind this censorship,
but these
, So the arrangement itself,
that there are these so-called trusted flaggers,
which in Finland are three, two associations and one company, can
rightly ask, is this now, is this now right,
that there is some entity that monitors the internet,
which is not an authority, though. There are
two, so they are associations and then a company, and then they have more
rights than others or they have been given some specific rights,
so you can think about whether this is a meaningful system and
then what if those associations and companies have
some interests of their own,
can they then abuse their own position?
For example, pressing the button that this section talking about them should be removed.
so even though nothing like that has happened here,
but still the situation that it could not be like that,
in my opinion it is no or that if there is such power,
can it be misused,
in my opinion it is that it is that which is always good to think about.
In my opinion it is more broadly related to this or if I think about
my own personal opinion regarding this mass surveillance,
so yes it would really be worth thinking about that
in what all ways mass surveillance is being implemented and
therefore everything
that certain people are trying to get through.
And how how it could be misused.
that in a certain way I understand
that many politicians also genuinely have this opinion,
that or may genuinely think that
now we are on the side of children and then we do
things like that,
that we would not get this material related to the use of such and such a child for the benefit of children
off the internet and in my opinion that is basically a good
goal. At the same time it is important to think about,
It's not what it is, it's not how it's being done,
it's not really effective and what's the cost,
because for example, what we've discussed in Finland
with people who have expertise in this, they say
that that material is still on the internet. Etc.
Then if we just interfere with normal
communication between people with these like WhatsApp or
these
like commonly used media,
it won't have a practical effect,
because the material produced by criminals will spread elsewhere.
And then the other thing is that
even though there are certainly many or quite a few who probably
think that it wouldn't be a good thing
to prevent the spread of this kind of material,
the biggest problem is precisely its production and the fact that it's not
created in the first place and that's where we should intervene.
So here it's a bit like a situation
where now politicians are getting or politicians are trying to
use this to communicate to citizens and voters
that we're doing this here, we're taking this seriously.
But then if the truth is that
this reality is not fixing the problem and at
the same time people's privacy is being weakened,
then it's just a patch
that's in the wrong place from the start.
Do you remember that Great Britain was one of those blogged countries,
that this is a bit related, because this can be discussed,
that this is now an EU problem only? As far as I remember, it wasn't.
But Great Britain hasn't been particularly well-established in this
kind of freedom of speech rights.
For example, when describing this, Päivi Räsänen is not allowed
to travel to England,
that she's against it, and Tynkyke probably had the same thing.
Yeah, it was undesirable for it to come.
But but but yeah, this is actually a very central central
thing, that leaving the EU in itself does not automatically mean
that freedom of speech and privacy would not be better.
Although my personal opinion is
that if the EU is moving more and more towards this police state,
then Finns should really think about whether we want to be
part of it.
Do we want Brussels to be monitoring Finns?
But leaving the EU
does not automatically guarantee good things.
And Britain is a very good example of
that, because in Britain, I mean,
when people are put there, there is a non-hate crime
law that kind of prosecutes people for tweets
because they are a little bit like inciting
a group of people. In Finland, there is a special
interpretation of freedom of speech that can then prevent certain unwanted
expressions of opinion in public with criminal law,
which is, and so that article is a bit of a joke.
But actually, in terms of this and end-to-end encrypted
messages, in general, my understanding when describing this is
that in end-to-end encrypted communication channels,
even now Signal and WhatsApp, there is no
problem.
So it is very difficult to get these under EU control anymore,
because the member states voted against it,
which tried to get these into the previously valid
directive.
So child protection is like generally accepted directives.
Based on them then these things are not allowed to be heard on encrypted channels
all communication has been monitored and this this this then they tried
to get this to continue but that too as described it is a bit
unclear whether even that will continue but like this as a general rule
all sensible people use those tools that have been driven into their heads anyway
and then it has to be a bit really quite a silly discussion that you
you put nothing on encrypted channels but then hardened
criminals and even those
who are still perverts and children in terms of exploitation,
then they will surely understand
that they are not on these crappy channels and that material.
So now we are trying to solve this problem
by taking ordinary people into this censorship
,
which then these criminals will not use that channel.
This is my little theory.
It has been a bit of a useless fight all this time. Among other things
, what is good to remember here is that simply
securing the end-to-end encryption, which is absolutely important, means
that if it were required or if the EU were to push through something like this,
that a backdoor must be installed in the end-to-end encryption,
then that would mean that
all criminals, including all intelligence services of foreign countries,
would also be able to use that backdoor,
so that it would not be like this, like if it were done correctly, it would
then provide a service to all malicious people
who also want to access that whole exchange of messages,
but that end-to-end encryption, as I
understand it, is not enough in itself,
that it would be theoretically possible and it may be
that there are certain parties in the EU that are trying to push for this,
so that the surveillance would then be put on a slightly
higher level.
In other words, so that the phone would not, in a certain sense, monitor everything
that happens inside the phone.
So then the thing is that the communication itself is to get the evil encrypted,
so that doesn't help and isn't enough,
because if what the phone does can be monitored,
then then in a way it would let Yeah,
but that wouldn't lead to the problem you mentioned,
that in the same way the phone or device like that plugin
would then be accessible to evil parties again, so
that it wouldn't help anything or it probably just sounds like
a really stupid idea.
Otherwise, I don't really trust those people's ability
to understand anything about crypto or encryption or
communications or freedom of speech,
that this is a bit like this amateur show.
It's probably because
for many people, if I try to think of such
a benevolent interpretation once again,
that many of us certainly take this issue
seriously—protecting children—and that's a good thing, but it's just that
if that technological understanding isn't very
advanced,
then in a way you might make such somewhat
stupid and ineffective decisions.
And then one thing that is really important, and this was one
thing that I'm not quite sure if it was Peter Sund who brought
it up or when we did another episode a little bit
related to this,
so then these what is in Finnish false positives, so this
possibility of false positive findings, or that it would be
very possible that because the algorithms that identify
this prohibited material
are inevitably imperfect, then it would lead to the fact
that ordinary people could then
be the subject of completely unfounded suspicion.
A good example of this is now I'm not quite sure
if this was in the United States, as I remember, there was a case like this,
that there was a man who had sent a picture of his own child,
his sick child, to a doctor.
And now, I don't remember the details of this, it's probably been years
since I read this, but it was a situation
where there was something like this, apparently a skin problem or
something like that, and then I had to consult a doctor and because of that, and
then
now I don't remember
what it was, what device it was, and what it was.
a company that then this this like a person's accounts eventually then ban,
but in any case that message was then interpreted as such
as forbidden forbidden material
that would contain the use of children,
even though it was so like addressed to a doctor and then because of that
the man's accounts accounts disappeared. Yeah.
So here is precisely this possibility of such like false false positive
findings and and so if this mass surveillance were to happen
specifically systematically and for everyone, then that would mean that
even though the percentage probability
that an individual message would be interpreted without reason would be relatively small,
but then when those messages are forwarded in huge amounts,
then that means
that they would still come across anyway. Yeah.
And that's related to your
mystery of the missing YouTube episodes in the way that the punishment is usually like this, like
the platform,
if it's like obliged to do some of these
measures on behalf of the authorities, then that's a really rational solution.
Now no one is paid to check anything or
respond to complaints,
that the account is just closed and then they don't respond to their messages.
This unfortunately happens a lot and you also have to
interpret your story a little bit,
that there was no rush to respond to anything on YouTube for almost a year,
but then when this juicy tweet and Swedish post come out and
then suddenly some customer service person there is interested.
So the thing is,
we weren't aware of this, that they were like gone.
Yeah.
So basically you can say here yes you can tip
your hat to YouTube for
reacting quite quickly here however it's a matter of days and not
weeks or months. Yeah.
But it's very possible
that when the quarter did that thing and even asked about this
issue,
then it kind of sped up the
resolution of this issue.
But then you also don't even know what that's like here or
that's like child abuse related
material,
so what would be essential or especially important was
that
it would focus on where the original problem is.
there like production yeah side then if it's just like this
like this so when patch patch you're pretending to be doing something that
doesn't really fix that problem then then it like
the original problem still remains unsolved yeah was it
Julius Kivimäki's so I would answer that Thor server was
however found with some like a spin somewhere like
France there police work there now of course quite
difficult when then the best possible protection technology
like torri is used and then like finding those bad guys in a way.
Oh well then you could think
that this is of course a crazy topic like child
abuse material
that should then just then some artificial intelligence fantasy
be implemented for them then
so that real people like children are not treated worse.
So, this is actually a really ethically challenging question and I
think there are two perspectives on it and I understand very
well the intuitive reaction
that many people probably have,
that even if it was produced by an act, it should be prohibited
because it evokes a feeling that this is so
wrong because it looks like that.
Then of course the other side is that if there is no victim,
if it is just pixels created by artificial intelligence,
then is there a problem?
And here, someone might say
that if watching this kind of material,
even if it was created by an act, increases the likelihood,
that the person would start to realize those fantasies in real life,
then that's why it should be banned.
Then someone else will say that or might say
that specifically that
if you could stay in that fantasy created by artificial intelligence,
then that would specifically mean that
then you wouldn't need to need that so that then children would actually
be saved, but but this is, for example, such a thing
that I don't have research information about
how this kind of material created by artificial intelligence would affect
people's behavior in real life. Yeah,
with artificial intelligence, I guess we'll be able to track down these
criminal gangs who create that material a little better.
Let's hope that it can at least be removed now.
That could be a similar question.
This discussion is a bit confusing when it comes to drugs, with some people believing
that by specifically preventing
all users and criminalizing everything,
this is exactly the right way to do it and just increasing punishment and
keeping it out, and others believing
that if you somehow remove the criminal cause,
then in a way, the use will also decrease.
And yes, I could still imagine that in practice, if I believed
that almost all people think that it would be better
if people watched some material,
then it would be better if it was something
that was produced by artificial intelligence and not something that is, like, if
the world was like that,
as if artificial intelligence produced the solution,
then that exploitation would then be gone and that would be like,
even couples probably have such a forced opinion,
so you know, this is really a bit of speculation,
that should we then create a register
where you can voluntarily declare
that you now have such a perversion and then in a way they give
you medication for it, this is for you, this is the equipment,
that you use, use this fantasy like that, that yes, but somehow it feels
like this is a harsh subject, that and specifically the most important thing
is that you won't have those children, that it would be a terrible
fate if that happens.
One of them is true and this was the one that was posted,
so it's a very interesting contradiction.
Even though they don't have a direct connection with each other,
they are still related to the same topic. And that's
because in Finland, if you think about what's happening
at the same time,
a few years ago in Finland, schools were given this respect
for boys in sex books and there were really three
very special passages in it.
But now you still have to remember that it's a book
that's been given to middle schools,
where students may be 12-16 years old.
And there was a passage in it where they taught
how to practice deepthroating with a banana.
So, for boys, for everyone
who reads it, regardless of gender. Yeah.
So this was a book
that apparently wasn't used systematically in all schools,
but there were some schools
where Pirkka used to teach this, there were some schools
where this was discussed in lessons and there were
instructions
on how to practice deepthroating with bananas and
it was even so that even if you vomited, you
could still practice with a banana.
And then again, you wonder
why anyone 12 or 13 years old needs to know anything like that, why
anyone 15 years old needs to know anything like that?
Oh, they're all there, you can learn them as an adult if
you feel like it. There was also a point where they taught you
how to practice anal sex to the point
where you stick a carrot in your own backside. And then you wonder,
now and so this is really so even though you can laugh at this,
this is a really serious matter,
if you think about it like
that they didn't at least make these machine foundations in the act. Yes.
Well yes yes it's with the other one the other one goes into the same category.
There weren't any children there,
but it was still a bit of a special case.
But so this really you don't like that shoving all things up the backside
as a principle is dangerous.
So like if you think about it from a surgical perspective. The doctor there is talking.
Well fake doctor,
because I really don't have a degree at least not yet.
You heard it from the pharyngeal canal here.
Don't shove things up the backside. Yeah yeah.
and then that's it and specifically that
and then that's it I don't remember
if
there were any instructions in it,
how to somehow heat the carrot or soften it or
does it
have
to
do
with
the
banana
but but
but
anyway
it
was
n't that
So, if there's one good thing to say about that book, like that passage
, it's that it did say, like it brought up the fact
that it's not a good idea to send these pictures to anyone
who doesn't want to receive them. For example
, you know, I don't think dick pics are drawn
, so that's a good thing, but you know, at the same time, the police
in Finland are very concerned about this kind of
child abuse and
that there are adults who try to get
children to send themselves, you know, you know, you know,
there's a book where children are taught that this is how
it's done, well, of course, someone might say that this is
just the modern world and it's better
that children are given at least some information than
if they were completely in the dark, but you know, the situation is
that we have a high school in Finland,
where children are taught how to send sexy pictures
that show their own genitals, and then we have the EU,
which is pushing for mass surveillance to identify precisely the material
that, in the book distributed to high schools in Finland, children
are taught to send. Yeah.
So this is me, I'm not saying that there are systematically some pedophiles everywhere
who, like, really want to, like, when they get there,
because so, like, that really really malicious interpretation would be
that this is all somehow planned, that
now it's now like, at the same time, children are being taught to send and then there
's this material and then there's still building an identification mechanism and
then we really get access to it.
In my opinion, this is this is like that that's going too far,
that no, yeah, fortunately, we here like that as responsible people,
as representatives of the tube media, we can talk about these things and we're not being chased
by this like, the fringe movement with that climactic axe and really this
Anastiina Kallius of Helsingin Sanomat vomiting and dodging won't stop
the rise of the fringe media,
so this doesn't concern us, so we can this is a completely safe space
we can talk about these things,
but this discussion is a bit forced to take this here so
because now we were talking earlier about the fact
that YouTube maybe blogged two of your episodes for rational reasons or
at least their EU visibility and this mystery has now been solved,
so then in a way it's a bit like the same thing,
that we have this official media,
which then invites this essayist to condemn these these
sides and 23 minutes of gibberish but it's worth watching and then those
arguments were really strange,
that mostly what I remembered was
that this essayist's inner circle feels physically
sick when they have to hear such dangerous opinions
that don't agree with their political worldview,
that they might even vomit them,
they might get a headache and they might get such a
feeling of rage, that how is this allowed,
that no, and then there was a bit of an idea,
that well, you can have that opinion about everything,
but there weren't really any facts in it arguments
that 23 minutes, which is almost as productive as you,
in one episode there was a bit of unpleasant talk about that
guy from Hungary, who can't be found. Well, I don't know what you think,
did you watch this Hesarin's story behind the Paywall and what
did you breathe, what feelings did you get?
I'm not saying that you already have a headache from that.
I actually have to maybe
criticize a little bit about those people who are outraged by this article.
I'm not saying everyone and because anyway I think it feels like
sometimes if you throw something like this right-wing,
right-wing conservative, all these stigmas they are really
inaccurate,
but but I could imagine the hypothesis that you don't say what you think yourself,
but I could imagine
that many of the people who thought or at least some of those people
thought this Hesar story was just like somehow ridiculous and like
they laughed at it,
how can this now somehow I feel sick, like what kind of thing this is,
some of those people probably could have written it themselves or
I think a little bit that what
happened in Pridi, this sex swing in front of children, that it's like a table, that
it's like vomiting and nausea and something like that.
So in a way, although there is perhaps a difference here,
that opinions are compared to
something like that, something
that happens in real life,
because just like that, if we think about this material related
to the use of children
, then surely many people think it is so disgusting and quite
understandably so, so in itself you could think
that in a certain sense it feels like
defending it.
So I don't, I don't take a position on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.
öö I don't think defending might be the wrong word,
but when you bring up the fact
that people's moral intuitions about
what is right and what is wrong,
so many people or someone could say that everyone has them, they
are
in a certain sense like internal sins and they can be associated with
bodily feelings
that you can't control yourself and and in a way then depending
on where the political aspects are,
they just go in different directions,
that for some then a sex swing in front of children is what causes
that like a feeling of imagery and then for others then wrong
opinions about Hungary are what wakes them up or something or where so yeah
myself so yeah yeah yes it's annoying now when I heard about this
middle school book where they stuff carrots in the backside and
then take pictures of that mouthful and that other stuff like that so
yeah oh yeah it's a little annoying now that like how much of this kind of
shit there is but so in general so myself when There's some left-wing
thing, which is what most of Finland is,
but it doesn't really bother me and I can read it,
I guess it's some kind of physical feeling it annoys people's
endless stupidity they just misunderstand things.
But yeah when they write that then I wouldn't have had to read it
and often I don't read it and life is better than not reading.
That's probably why they think
that I don't want to listen to even a minute of it, like 23
minutes or Roni's rating, and that they do whatever they want,
but is there any need to generalize it somehow, to generalize
that you do what you want as an individual,
but don't generalize it to something like that
,
Plus then like is this some kind of a sample of some of that columnist's
friends,
that if they have a bit of a bad feeling now, it's because they're not listening
to that, even if it's Ivan Puopolo, well, well, so it's
kind of true what
you said earlier,
that you don't feel anything like vomiting or anything like that,
no, I haven't noticed either,
so if that's the case, there are probably certain things,
some individual things,
where that can come from, somehow I'm not quite sure
what that physical feeling is,
but somehow nevertheless that feeling, that if you read something,
where it comes from,
that this is really wrong, somehow really against your own sense of justice
or something like that, so yes, yes, yes, it depends a bit on
how analytically you're in that moment when you're reading.
And then I guess
that another thing that affects me is that
since I obviously have some degree of Alexithymia,
then that too, and if someone thinks about what this means,
then it's like a difficulty in recognizing emotions.
So then, that you don't necessarily even know
what kind of bodily emotions you have or can access them
. And it's also that, oh if and now I'm not saying
how other people
are doing, but it's also possible that even if people who say
that they don't feel any kind of emotions,
it could be that they actually do,
but you don't recognize them and then those emotions might still affect
what you think about your own reading,
but yeah, there's definitely a lot of individual variation here,
but what you said about this, or even in relation to
the essay itself,
yes, this is just a very good advertisement for all of them
and this is something that has been thought about,
that it would be really, really interesting to know
that this writer, that you didn't think about it,
that now it's like a direct input into these podcasts
and actually I could say this to the entire podcast field,
because if you think about that, that ethos,
which maybe in many of these podcasts or The thing about
the pods mentioned in those essays is
that there is such a confrontation
with the mainstream media or actually the institutional media,
so now this essay is kind of reinforcing the image
that that confrontation is real and then basically these
pods get a free victim point because,
look at how they are trying to silence us from somewhere up there
or yeah and when those arguments were so arrogant,
because what annoys me here is maybe the leftist
media, if I can generalize, then in the counter-argumentation,
they come up with some kind of scapegoat, even though it was that
somehow Orban was desperately found,
who was not kicked out, and then it was roughly said
that because during Orban's time the opposition was suppressed and they were
a bit leftist there,
so it's a bit the same thing here,
but then you see, in fact
, there is a bit of shadow media in the United States,
so in Finland they are not leftist, but rightist,
so somehow those arguments were in my opinion really
unclear, what was the analogy that was being tried to make, but also
that they were just trying to say Hungary is bad,
Orban is bad, oh, so some signs of laxity, then with this
, with the tube scene, it just felt really lax,
but I agree with you
that this was a very good advertisement and I'm a little sad
that I would have actually liked to be on that list,
but if you write again, put a negotiator there,
that I would like this.
So now we can't say
that we are such and such media. Yes. Yep. Hesar Hesari at least is not.
And so I've been thinking about whether there could be something like that there too, just
as a hypothesis, because we have also
had the editor-in-chief of Hesar as a guest and we have
had a journalist from Hesar. I've had many too.
Yes, absolutely and in the future, the journalist from Hesar will be invited.
So that would be it, I don't think they'll ever get us there, so that's
for sure or well I don't know, I don't know, maybe maybe less likely,
but of course it would be a positive surprise.
But the fact that it might seem a bit strange
if you said that it was the media,
but still you are a guest yourself,
then it might become a kind of
cognitive dissonance, but but that's it and then maybe that's it,
that even though we don't, if I think about it like a topic of conversation,
we haven't criticized Hesar, but it doesn't feel
like we have at any point been clearly profiled
against Hesar or anything, and then it's like in a
certain sense we are more diplomatic, if
I can say so.
I may have taken a more critical
line in X at times, but it's exciting to see
that when this development goes a little further,
because those advertising clubs are constantly moving from institutional
media to this new, whatever
you call these orchestras, in a way, onto them,
and at the same time when the audience moves, like the advertising clubs move and
the audience moves and of course they go hand in hand, which means that
influence also moves,
then I wouldn't be surprised at all
that if this is in a certain sense the first taste of
what's coming in five or ten years,
that because Hesari and Yle are trying to maintain their own
legitimacy and then trying to hold on to those advertising clubs,
then it can lower the threshold and then in a certain sense attack.
This is a really naive cancellation attempt by so many people
,
but Yle gets its 570 million for its
free content and uninterrupted
production of content without commercial interruptions. That's not to say that this argument doesn't apply to it,
but Yle of course wants to defend its 570 million
tax dollars and defends it very aggressively.
Of course, it wants to hold on to every tax loophole.
Yeah, yeah. But it's interesting that C-sami said there
that you'll have expert guests about how it's developing.
But do you still have that?
Any points about the legislative level?
Maybe the big picture is that if you think about it,
whenever legislation is created
that in some way restricts freedom of speech or increases
surveillance or is a step towards a police state, I think
it's worth being really careful and very careful,
because right now, right now, when this episode is being filmed, it's like
Räsänen and Tynkky,
they didn't get into the UK, and then some people on social
media were laughing a little bit about it,
that now Tynkkynen is getting a taste of his own medicine,
because Tynkkynen himself has called for an entry ban on
various or certain people.
And now that Tykkinen is rich himself, now he's getting his own medicine.
I don't know if that's it, I understand the point,
but then you can't, it's a different matter,
whether you consider the things that some people have been convicted of
to be of equal value or whether you generally
think
that Tynkkönen basically deserved these sentences.
The interesting situation with Räsen is
that Räsänen himself was, as I understand it, promoting
the legislation that led to Räsäne's latest sentence. For example
, regarding the acquittal
, what does this quoting of the Bible have to do with
it, in my opinion, all politicians should
think very carefully about
whether they should start doing some kind of mass surveillance,
which is specifically related to the fact
that you don't post inappropriate
content related to child abuse there,
what if as a result you yourself end up being wrongly flagged
and that causes problems for yourself.
How many politicians take into account that, then any other
thing, what can follow from it,
which at the moment does not necessarily even come to mind, or does not
even come to mind, and then if you think about Finland,
it seems to me that we Finns have a somewhat naive or
blue-eyed attitude towards those in power and
especially towards the authorities,
that we think that the authorities somehow act correctly,
that although in connection with this Guard Helsinki there is now
a discussion or has been a discussion about this structural corruption
or good brotherhood networks, but then perhaps we somehow think
that those authorities nevertheless act correctly in principle,
but we nevertheless have a drug police boss
who was sentenced to prison. So, if there are tools
that can be used to somehow monitor ordinary citizens and
mark them or something like that, can we trust
that the people who control and use those tools
will always work correctly and not in the same way as
the boss of the drug police and so on, another thing that I
think is worth thinking about.
This is actually also related to this entry ban,
that if someone is satisfied that,
well, Tynkkyne and Rasanen
were not allowed into the country,
then what if the next government in Britain is
clearly right-wing or right-wing conservative and
then they have the legislative framework in place
that can prevent people from coming into the country and they are
only targeting people like each other or
people who have different opinions,
that in my opinion it is always worth thinking about that
if there were people in power
who you don't like and whose political opinions are completely
opposite to what you have, what would happen
if those people had the tools
that you are creating and what would the world look like then?
That is something in my opinion that is always worth thinking about and
so really really carefully. Yeah, I agree.
And then he also added
that these channels should have some legal protection,
so that if you can be blocked or canceled or
marked as suspicious in some system,
then there should be some right to audit it and then the right
to
establish some kind of connection to
whether a miscarriage of justice is happening here.
Like a little bit, like partly happening here in connection with your YouTube
case.
That's where I don't think I'd say maybe I'm not really saying it.
Well yeah, but you got it now anyway like I have it too so I have
for example had my own customer service on YouTube,
so I could handle a similar situation with just
that mass this like visibility brings power,
which is really good yeah if but you just raise it or that Petri
Kajander,
who was a guest here so then he had meta just deleted his
account so that other than that gives no chance to cancel it,
that if you then do this with all the love but Petrel,
that if you are so small, then you have no chance.
To reverse such decisions is precisely yes, so that
in a certain sense this risk of miscarriage of justice is a very, very
important thing then if if you are like a small actor and if you don't have
visibility if you don't have influence then and that is
in my opinion you can say that it is like a genuine genuine concern and just that
if then this one example so if I remember from the US where
this father had sent a picture of his sick child to
the doctor and then because of that the accounts went away so that is an example
of what can what can happen.
And then if you think about it even though it was a relatively recent
example as I remember it was some comic artist
who had drawn some anime or something like that now I don't remember which
country. So then then then those comics,
which apparently weren't that problematic,
but somehow they were they were then they were so some algorithm had
looked at
that they were then anyway and then because of that everything went away.
So basically I could say to everyone that
you shouldn't store any really important information solely
in the cloud,
but that you should always have physical
copies of everything, because and even if, even if, maybe
the probability of an individual person
getting into this situation
is relatively small.
But if you want to play it safe, then it's a good idea to think
about what your backup plan would be
if that happens, and for example, the services you use,
whether they have or can you add
a second email address or something else,
so that you don't have a single point of failure.
So things don't just rely on one single point or
one single thing and then if that single thing
breaks, then it's Mm.
Yeah, I actually suggest we go to the insider side.
Let's talk a little about these and then about related matters.
So, we have actually
Rami Kurimo and I have both flirted a bit with Linux and Mac, and I guess neither of us have ever been
PC fans, but that's about
it, when you've watched or listened to this,
please like and subscribe to Rami's Puheenaihe channel, and
all the comments help these algorithms,
so that they can gain some power over this or that YouTube
and Spotify channel, so that we seem relevant to them,
so that this increases our power in this system.
But I suggest we go to the insider side and talk about it, you
bought a Macki Ultra and you demoed it in your studio and it played well
. I've been a little bit annoyed,
I have this one running in MCM,
so I'm waiting for this when the moon rises for the M5 Ultra,
so this is a bit related.
At the same time, we looked at it a bit, compared it, said I have a couple of provinces, and
how can we still get it up to security standards,
so let's talk briefly about these two things in the inside circle.
So is Mäkki pretty safe after all and how