3 ms·

Would it be a good thing or a bad thing if pedophiles couldn't use encrypted messengers to exchange child pornography on the internet? As always the means need

Would it be a good thing or a bad thing if pedophiles couldn't use encrypted messengers to exchange child pornography on the internet? As always the means need to be weighed against the end.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
There are plenty of reasons to use encryption that have nothing to do with kiddie porn. What are the good reasons to allow calls for violence? Or to keep carrying content which supports it? What is YouTube, or society, losing by blocking it?
- daveidol 6y ago
  Of course if you can be pinpoint, objectively accurate with your censorship of "calls for violence" then that's great (not being sarcastic). But the world doesn't really work that way. There is always a line between black and white that some human has to look at and decide "yeah this is ban-worthy" or not. Sometimes it's obvious - sometimes it's not so much. One example: remember that "documentary" "Loose Change" that came out after 9/11 and questioned if it was an inside job? I watched it out of curiosity at the time. It was later debunked - but if it had been just immediately removed from every site and nearly impossible to watch I think that could have had a reverse effect. Instead I was able to evaluate the details (or "misinformation", in some cases) from both sides. So, I believe the previous poster is implying there are always going to be subjective, biased, and sometimes morally questionable issues that arise when censoring information across multiple major platforms - similar to the issue of allowing encryption vs banning it. If you could ban encryption only for child pornography distribution purposes then yes that would be great, but unfortunately that comes at a cost (and it's not like people/politicians haven't tried to do just that). I don't think we have stepped into full great firewall of China level censorship or anything, but this is a step in that direction - for better or for worse.
- themaninthedark 6y ago
  The problem is of course, who gets to decide what a call for violence is? I have seen people use "Come on down, it will be wild" as an example of a call for violence. On the other hand, you have people on this site arguing that "Defund the Police" does not infact mean remove all funding. Even when there is a NY Times published opinion with the title "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police" ant eh second to last paragraph starts with "People like me who want to abolish prisons and police" For a long time "Learn to code" was a statement made by journalist to the working class about how they need to better themselves and adapt to the changing work requirements. Now it is considered harassment because it was being thrown back at the same journalists when they started losing their jobs. Do you think that the people pushing for these laws and restrictions are doing so because they want to help your side or because they want power? And once they get the power they seek, do you think they will allow for the change you wish to enact to come to fruition, especially if it runs the risk of diminishing their power?

Would it be a good thing or a bad thing if pedophiles couldn't use encrypted messengers to exchange child pornography on the internet? As always the means need to be weighed against the end.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

There are plenty of reasons to use encryption that have nothing to do with kiddie porn. What are the good reasons to allow calls for violence? Or to keep carrying content which supports it? What is YouTube, or society, losing by blocking it?

daveidol 6y ago
Of course if you can be pinpoint, objectively accurate with your censorship of "calls for violence" then that's great (not being sarcastic). But the world doesn't really work that way. There is always a line between black and white that some human has to look at and decide "yeah this is ban-worthy" or not. Sometimes it's obvious - sometimes it's not so much. One example: remember that "documentary" "Loose Change" that came out after 9/11 and questioned if it was an inside job? I watched it out of curiosity at the time. It was later debunked - but if it had been just immediately removed from every site and nearly impossible to watch I think that could have had a reverse effect. Instead I was able to evaluate the details (or "misinformation", in some cases) from both sides. So, I believe the previous poster is implying there are always going to be subjective, biased, and sometimes morally questionable issues that arise when censoring information across multiple major platforms - similar to the issue of allowing encryption vs banning it. If you could ban encryption only for child pornography distribution purposes then yes that would be great, but unfortunately that comes at a cost (and it's not like people/politicians haven't tried to do just that). I don't think we have stepped into full great firewall of China level censorship or anything, but this is a step in that direction - for better or for worse.
themaninthedark 6y ago
The problem is of course, who gets to decide what a call for violence is? I have seen people use "Come on down, it will be wild" as an example of a call for violence. On the other hand, you have people on this site arguing that "Defund the Police" does not infact mean remove all funding. Even when there is a NY Times published opinion with the title "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police" ant eh second to last paragraph starts with "People like me who want to abolish prisons and police" For a long time "Learn to code" was a statement made by journalist to the working class about how they need to better themselves and adapt to the changing work requirements. Now it is considered harassment because it was being thrown back at the same journalists when they started losing their jobs. Do you think that the people pushing for these laws and restrictions are doing so because they want to help your side or because they want power? And once they get the power they seek, do you think they will allow for the change you wish to enact to come to fruition, especially if it runs the risk of diminishing their power?