2 ms·

>The logic here is very, very simple: You don't help bad people do bad things. Period. End of discussion. Yes, that's the logic behind Zero Tolerance everythin

>The logic here is very, very simple: You don't help bad people do bad things. Period. End of discussion. Yes, that's the logic behind Zero Tolerance everything, and also FOSTA/SESTA. It makes one look/feel good to say it. The downside? It doesn't help address the problem. Again, effect of the ban on women is missing from your answer.

int_19h 8y ago
The effect of the ban on women will be nearly nil, since the system was in place before apps existed. If there is any difference, it'll be positive, because the "guardians" won't bother setting the notifications up. And comparing this to FOSTA/SESTA doesn't make any sense. Those laws didn't ban something that is unambiguously evil - they banned a whole bunch of random stuff under the guise of targeting sex trafficking. The equivalent here would be if I was demanding that Google and Apple ban all tracking apps in general, on the basis that they're used by "guardians".
- romwell 8y ago
  If the effect on women will be nearly nil, then does it all become a PR question? In that case, couldn't it be useful to keep the app if only to keep track of how many people this policy affects? I drew analogies to FOSTA because even FOSTA's intended effect (as stated) was negative. Yes, it actually made it a bit more difficult to do sex trafficking online (along with adversely affecting tons of other people). As a result, traffickers are harder to catch. The "don't deal with the bad guys" approach sounds great, but even an embargo doesn't often work: see what years of sanctions got us with Cuba, NK, and Iran (in terms of improving the lives of people in those countries).
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Because it matters for assigning responsibility. Same reason why we jail crime accomplices, even if they can prove that the crime would have happened if not for their participation. What you propose is basically assisting in oppression on the basis that it would have been even worse otherwise. That is a recurring theme in apologetics, especially so in WW2. They don't sound at all convincing, and I'm not aware of anybody getting off the hook with such claims.

int_19h 8y ago

The effect of the ban on women will be nearly nil, since the system was in place before apps existed. If there is any difference, it'll be positive, because the "guardians" won't bother setting the notifications up. And comparing this to FOSTA/SESTA doesn't make any sense. Those laws didn't ban something that is unambiguously evil - they banned a whole bunch of random stuff under the guise of targeting sex trafficking. The equivalent here would be if I was demanding that Google and Apple ban all tracking apps in general, on the basis that they're used by "guardians".

romwell 8y ago
If the effect on women will be nearly nil, then does it all become a PR question? In that case, couldn't it be useful to keep the app if only to keep track of how many people this policy affects? I drew analogies to FOSTA because even FOSTA's intended effect (as stated) was negative. Yes, it actually made it a bit more difficult to do sex trafficking online (along with adversely affecting tons of other people). As a result, traffickers are harder to catch. The "don't deal with the bad guys" approach sounds great, but even an embargo doesn't often work: see what years of sanctions got us with Cuba, NK, and Iran (in terms of improving the lives of people in those countries).
- int_19h 8y ago
  Because it matters for assigning responsibility. Same reason why we jail crime accomplices, even if they can prove that the crime would have happened if not for their participation. What you propose is basically assisting in oppression on the basis that it would have been even worse otherwise. That is a recurring theme in apologetics, especially so in WW2. They don't sound at all convincing, and I'm not aware of anybody getting off the hook with such claims.