4 ms·

"Think of the children" wins the day every time. As it probably should, in this case, because we're not giving up a lot. People think that one child abused is

by aj700 15y ago

"Think of the children" wins the day every time. As it probably should, in this case, because we're not giving up a lot. People think that one child abused is one too many, which is hard to argue. But yes, you can argue that blocking entire domains instead of specific urls is overkill. Accessing free child porn anonymously doesn't "incentivise" child abuse. But some think that it encourages abuse in real life. But that's a psychological argument, not a technical one.

mseebach 15y ago
> People think that one child abused is one too many, which is hard to argue. It is hard to argue, but it's also a red herring. The missing bit is the solid link between someone(1) NOT accessing child porn and, somewhere down the line a child NOT getting abused. 1: and that someone is likely to be a small fish, as one must expect the serious guys to be perfectly capable of using any of the hundreds of easily accessible and usable tools (various flavours of crypto) to circumvent the deploy anti-measures. To a certain extend, this is the war on drugs all over again. We fight (a very small subset of) the consumers because then we are seen to do something (tm), but it's not clear that it puts a significant dent in the production. And this is a harder nut to crack than drugs, because the easy demand-side solution (at least partial legalisation) is not really feasible here.
- mseebach 15y ago
  Actually, come to think of it. There exists a possible partial demand-side solution: CGI or drawings, but in recent debacles surrounding this, opinion has been firmly against. Flooding the market with easily accessible, legal no-victim drawn/CGI material at least has the potential of keeping potential consumers of the real stuff away from it. This just goes to show that "one child abused is too many" only applies when the solution discussed isn't "wrong".
  - bhickey 15y ago
    The think of the children squad is immune to reason. They'll smear your name and then your colleagues will look at you funny when you wander into the office at 10:30.

by aj700 15y ago

mseebach 15y ago

> People think that one child abused is one too many, which is hard to argue. It is hard to argue, but it's also a red herring. The missing bit is the solid link between someone(1) NOT accessing child porn and, somewhere down the line a child NOT getting abused. 1: and that someone is likely to be a small fish, as one must expect the serious guys to be perfectly capable of using any of the hundreds of easily accessible and usable tools (various flavours of crypto) to circumvent the deploy anti-measures. To a certain extend, this is the war on drugs all over again. We fight (a very small subset of) the consumers because then we are seen to do something (tm), but it's not clear that it puts a significant dent in the production. And this is a harder nut to crack than drugs, because the easy demand-side solution (at least partial legalisation) is not really feasible here.

mseebach 15y ago
Actually, come to think of it. There exists a possible partial demand-side solution: CGI or drawings, but in recent debacles surrounding this, opinion has been firmly against. Flooding the market with easily accessible, legal no-victim drawn/CGI material at least has the potential of keeping potential consumers of the real stuff away from it. This just goes to show that "one child abused is too many" only applies when the solution discussed isn't "wrong".
- bhickey 15y ago
  The think of the children squad is immune to reason. They'll smear your name and then your colleagues will look at you funny when you wander into the office at 10:30.