---
title: "When Moderation Has No Dashboard: CSAM, Platform Power and Finland's Podcast Shift | Rami Kurimo"
titleOriginal: "Hesarin laitamedia-essee oli paras mainos suomalaisille podcasteille | Rami Kurimo | 397"
episodeNumber: "397"
guest: "Rami Kurimo"
datePublished: 2026-07-30
duration: "57:01"
youtube: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA"
captionsVtt: https://www.neuvottelija.com/podcast/episodes/820-hesarin-laitamedia-essee-oli-paras-mainos-suomalaisille-podc/captions.en.vtt
captionsSrt: https://www.neuvottelija.com/podcast/episodes/820-hesarin-laitamedia-essee-oli-paras-mainos-suomalaisille-podc/captions.en.srt
originalLanguage: "fi"
topics: ["free_speech_society","ai_enterprise_tech"]
subtitleMethod: "publisher-supplied-machine-english-sampled-qa"
provenance: "revised local SBV curated by Sami Miettinen after the 2026-07-30 editorial cut"
fiCanonical: "https://www.neuvottelija.fi/fi/episodes/820-hesarin-laitamedia-essee-oli-paras-mainos-suomalaisille-podc"
canonical: https://www.neuvottelija.com/podcast/episodes/820-hesarin-laitamedia-essee-oli-paras-mainos-suomalaisille-podc/
---
# When Moderation Has No Dashboard: CSAM, Platform Power and Finland's Podcast Shift | Rami Kurimo

## Chapters

- [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=0s) Rami Kurimo and Puheenaihe introduce themselves
- [00:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=39s) Two episodes disappeared from YouTube in Europe
- [02:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=172s) Timeline of what actually happened
- [05:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=318s) Ilta-Sanomat and Kvartal caught wind of the case
- [06:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=389s) YouTube's explanation turned out to be logical
- [07:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=427s) Election-podcast ads and political-advertising labels
- [08:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=497s) The autumn 2025 rule change blocked the episodes
- [08:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=529s) Cutting the ads restored the episodes immediately
- [10:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=607s) A soft ban is effective and frustrating
- [12:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=731s) Commercial-collaboration labels and mainstream media
- [13:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=824s) Trusted flaggers in Finland and oversight of oversight
- [15:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=923s) Who watches the watchers?
- [16:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=986s) Illicit material spreads on the Tor network
- [17:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1071s) Britain shows that leaving the EU is not enough
- [19:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1175s) The current state of end-to-end encryption
- [21:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1278s) A backdoor would also serve criminals and intelligence agencies
- [23:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1403s) The danger of false-positive detections
- [24:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1470s) A father sent a picture of his child to a doctor and lost his account
- [26:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1567s) The platform's cheapest solution is to terminate the account
- [28:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1698s) AI-generated material as an ethical question
- [31:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1867s) A sex-education book distributed to junior-high students
- [34:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2053s) Conflict between surveillance and school education
- [36:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2163s) The Helsingin Sanomat essay and the fringe-media label
- [38:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2322s) Moral intuitions point toward different targets
- [43:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2602s) The essay is free advertising for podcasts
- [45:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2755s) Advertising euros and influence are shifting to new creators
- [48:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2901s) The big picture of legislation and the police state
- [51:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=3100s) What if the tools end up in the hands of the opposing side
- [53:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=3210s) Petri Kajander's lost account
- [54:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=3299s) Backups and the single point of failure risk
- [55:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=3348s) In the Inner Circle: Mac and cybersecurity

## Summary

Puheenaihe's co-founder Rami Kurimo explains why two episodes of his podcast disappeared from YouTube in Europe just as the debate over CSAM chat control was at its peak. The case initially looked like censorship, as one of the missing episodes specifically discussed EU mass surveillance and the obligation of platforms to remove content. The explanation was ultimately found in YouTube's political advertising settings, but the lack of transparency in the process raises a larger question about how a small operator copes with automated moderation without visibility or influence. The episode also covers the trusted flagger system, the future of end-to-end encryption, the risks of false positives, and why the core of the problem lies in the production of material rather than the communication of ordinary people. Finally, they discuss an essay in Helsingin Sanomat that condemned Finland's podcast scene as fringe media while simultaneously offering it the best possible advertising.

> **Editorial revision:** Updated 30 July 2026 to match the shortened video. The unnecessary break at editor timecode 40:59:15–42:56:00 was removed; duration, later chapters and both transcript tracks were retimed. The edit does not change the article's substantive analysis.

[Watch Inner Circle episodes and join Samantha on the Neuvottelija Inner Circle WhatsApp channel.](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRI34L9OtDJuZpaWicbNXzg/join)

## Expert analysis

The most important fact in Rami Kurimo's case is the least dramatic one: the interview does not establish that YouTube suppressed Puheenaihe because of its criticism of CSAM scanning. Kurimo says old advertisements for an election podcast had been marked as political advertising. When Google's European political-advertising policy changed in autumn 2025, that classification made the two host episodes unavailable in the EU. Removing the ads and clearing the label restored direct access immediately and search visibility within hours.

That factual correction matters. A specialist analysis should not turn a plausible first hypothesis into a censorship claim after a different cause has been identified. But the mundane explanation does not make the incident harmless. It reveals a real platform-governance failure: a publisher could see the videos while signed in, viewers outside Europe could reach them, and the episodes remained available through other podcast services, yet YouTube Studio did not clearly expose the regional restriction or connect it to the relevant setting. Kurimo says first-line support could not initially identify the reason either. The creator experienced a policy consequence without a usable statement of reasons.

### One creator, three different regulatory systems

The conversation moves among three regimes that should be kept separate.

First, political advertising. Google says it stopped allowing political advertising in the EU on 10 October 2025 in response to the EU's political-advertising regulation. Its policy covers not only candidates and elections but, in defined circumstances, ads intended to influence a legislative or regulatory process. In Kurimo's account, this was the system that actually caused the block. It was a legacy-label problem, not a finding about the interview's political viewpoint. See Google's [EU political-content policy](https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/16409999?hl=en) and [YouTube disclosure guidance](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7438625?hl=en-EN).

Second, the Digital Services Act and trusted flaggers. Trusted flaggers submit notices that platforms must process with priority, but the European Commission states that the platform remains responsible for deciding whether content is illegal and should be removed. In Finland, Traficom currently lists three certified organisations: Tekijänoikeuden tiedotus- ja valvontakeskus, Save the Children Finland, and Somis Enterprises. Traficom can investigate compliance and revoke status when requirements fail. Nothing presented in this interview shows that a trusted flagger was involved in the Puheenaihe block. Treating the system as the cause would therefore be speculation. See the Commission's [trusted-flagger overview](https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/trusted-flaggers-under-dsa) and [Traficom's Finnish register](https://www.traficom.fi/en/data-economy-and-data-intermediation/trusted-flaggers).

Third, the separate CSAM and encryption debate. The policy objective—preventing and prosecuting the sexual abuse of children—is not in dispute here. The hard questions concern necessity, proportionality, technical effectiveness, and safeguards against generalised monitoring. As of this article's review on 30 July 2026, the EU has reinstated a temporary regime allowing providers to use certain voluntary detection technologies until 3 April 2028. Number-independent interpersonal communications using end-to-end encryption are excluded from that temporary measure. The permanent framework remains under negotiation; the temporary exclusion should not be reported as a final settlement of the long-term encryption question. See the Council's [23 July 2026 decision](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/da/press/press-releases/2026/07/23/fighting-child-sexual-abuse-online-interim-measure-protecting-children-now-reinstated/) and Parliament's [9 July 2026 position](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20260706IPR46318).

The European Data Protection Board and European Data Protection Supervisor warned in their joint opinion on the original 2022 proposal that its detection architecture risked becoming general and indiscriminate scanning. That is a legal and architectural criticism, not an argument against investigating abuse. It asks whether the means remain targeted enough for a democratic communications system. The [EDPB–EDPS joint opinion](https://www.edpb.europa.eu/documents/legislative-opinion/edpb-edps-joint-opinion-042022-on-the-proposal-for-a-regulation-of_en) remains an essential primary source for that concern.

### False positives are a governance cost

The interview's strongest expert point is not a claim about a particular detection rate. It is about who pays when an automated decision is wrong. At platform scale, even a low error rate can create a large queue of innocent cases. The cheapest operational response may be to suspend an account and make the user prove the negative. The cost then moves from the platform to the creator: lost distribution, missing archives, support time, reputational uncertainty, and sometimes the loss of unrelated files connected to the same identity.

The anecdote about a father losing an account after sending a medically relevant image should be treated as an interview example, not as independently verified evidence in this article. The underlying governance question is still sound: what notice does the user receive, what evidence can be challenged, how quickly does a human review occur, and what happens to unrelated data while the appeal is pending? Under the DSA, platforms must provide reasons for moderation decisions and offer routes for internal complaint and out-of-court dispute settlement. The Commission summarises those [user redress rights here](https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/digital-services-act-keeping-us-safe-online-2025-09-22_en).

This is why a cryptographic 'backdoor' debate cannot be reduced to whether the intended investigators are trustworthy. A systemic access mechanism changes the attack surface for everyone who may later obtain, imitate, compel, or steal the capability. Good policy analysis uses an adversarial test: would the rule still look acceptable if the institution operating it were controlled by one's political opponent, or if the technical access path were discovered by a hostile intelligence service?

### Why the media essay became an advertisement

The final third of the interview turns to a Helsingin Sanomat essay, identified in the conversation as Annastiina Kallius's “Oksennus ja väistely eivät pysäytä laitamedian nousua.” This article has not independently reproduced or verified the essay's full argument; the discussion here is based on how Kurimo and Miettinen describe it in the recorded interview.

Their market insight is persuasive. A legacy outlet that groups named podcasts under a fringe-media label does two things at once. It tries to set a reputational boundary, but it also supplies a discovery list, confirms that the creators have become competitively relevant, and gives audiences a simple oppositional identity to adopt. Condemnation can therefore operate as demand generation.

That does not prove that all advertising money or influence has already moved from institutional media to podcasts. The interview offers that as a thesis, not a dataset. What the episode does demonstrate is a changed bargaining structure. Independent shows can own a direct subscriber relationship, distribute the same episode across several feeds, publish full source material, and turn criticism by a larger outlet into attention. Institutional media still holds substantial authority and reporting capacity, but it no longer controls discovery on its own.

The word “fringe” is especially unstable in that environment. It can describe distance from an editorial institution, an ideological judgment, a distribution position, or a claim about factual reliability. Collapsing those meanings is analytically weak. The better test is publication-specific: What was claimed? What is the evidence? What correction mechanism exists? Who is accountable for an error?

### A practical resilience standard for small publishers

Kurimo's case suggests a concrete operating model for podcast companies:

1. Test availability from logged-out accounts and from more than one EU location; a creator dashboard is not the viewer experience.
2. Keep a change log of advertising labels, paid-partnership declarations, edits, support case numbers, and regional restrictions.
3. Ask for a written statement of reasons and use DSA complaint routes when a restriction is unexplained.
4. Distribute through independent podcast feeds as well as video platforms; no platform account should be the only route to the audience.
5. Maintain a first-party canonical page with descriptions, transcripts, source links, and correction notes.
6. Back up masters, captions, metadata, subscriber records where lawfully portable, and account-recovery credentials outside the platform's single sign-on.
7. Separate verified facts, interviewee claims, hypotheses, and editorial analysis in every follow-up article.

The lesson is not that every moderation error is censorship. It is that opaque enforcement makes different systems look identical from the outside and gives well-connected publishers a faster path to explanation than small ones. Transparent reasons, meaningful appeal, multi-channel distribution, and first-party archives are therefore not technical housekeeping. They are part of editorial independence.

### Source status and corrections

This analysis is based on the [recorded Rami Kurimo interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA), the publisher-supplied Finnish transcript, the supplied English accessibility transcript, and the primary regulatory sources linked above. Interview claims are attributed as claims unless independently supported. The English subtitle track is complete and time-aligned, but sampled semantic review found machine-translation artifacts; material sampled reversals were corrected, and the Finnish transcript and video remain authoritative for exact quotation. Legal status was reviewed on 30 July 2026. Substantive corrections should be reflected in the page's review date and source note.

## Transcript

*English transcript derived from validated English subtitles ([WebVTT](https://www.neuvottelija.com/podcast/episodes/820-hesarin-laitamedia-essee-oli-paras-mainos-suomalaisille-podc/captions.en.vtt) · [SRT](https://www.neuvottelija.com/podcast/episodes/820-hesarin-laitamedia-essee-oli-paras-mainos-suomalaisille-podc/captions.en.srt)). Timestamps link to the original video.*

[**00:00**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=0s) 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!

[**01:04**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=64s) 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?

[**02:08**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=128s) 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,

[**03:09**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=189s) 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

[**04:12**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=252s) 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.

[**05:13**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=313s) 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

[**06:14**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=374s) 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

[**07:18**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=438s) 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

[**08:18**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=498s) 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

[**09:19**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=559s) 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

[**10:19**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=619s) 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

[**11:23**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=683s) 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

[**12:25**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=745s) 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

[**13:28**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=808s) 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

[**14:31**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=871s) 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,

[**15:34**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=934s) 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,

[**16:37**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=997s) 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

[**17:37**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1057s) 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

[**18:40**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1120s) 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.

[**19:44**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1184s) 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

[**20:48**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1248s) 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

[**21:49**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1309s) 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

[**22:53**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1373s) 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

[**23:57**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1437s) 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

[**24:59**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1499s) 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

[**26:00**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1560s) 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,

[**27:00**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1620s) 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

[**28:04**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1684s) 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,

[**29:07**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1747s) 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

[**30:08**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1808s) 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,

[**31:11**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1871s) 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

[**32:12**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1932s) 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.

[**33:12**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=1992s) 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

[**34:14**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2054s) 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

[**35:16**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2116s) 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,

[**36:19**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2179s) 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

[**37:20**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2240s) 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

[**38:23**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2303s) 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

[**39:25**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2365s) 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

[**40:28**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2428s) 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,

[**41:31**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2491s) 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

[**42:32**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2552s) 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,

[**43:33**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2613s) 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

[**44:36**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2676s) 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

[**45:38**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2738s) 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

[**46:38**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2798s) 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,

[**47:38**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2858s) 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.

[**48:43**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2923s) 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

[**49:43**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=2983s) 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

[**50:43**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=3043s) 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

[**51:44**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=3104s) 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

[**52:46**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=3166s) 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.

[**53:49**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=3229s) 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

[**54:51**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=3291s) 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.

[**55:52**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=3352s) 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.

[**56:56**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEeuZQAyAAA&t=3416s) So is Mäkki pretty safe after all and how

---

Cite as: Sami Miettinen, Neuvottelija — When Moderation Has No Dashboard: CSAM, Platform Power and Finland's Podcast Shift | Rami Kurimo, https://www.neuvottelija.com/podcast/episodes/820-hesarin-laitamedia-essee-oli-paras-mainos-suomalaisille-podc/, 2026-07-30. For quotes include episode 397 and timestamp.