5 ms·

So a bookstore is just selling colored pieces of paper, even if those pieces of paper are images of child abuse? Seriously what is wrong with you? I get that c

So a bookstore is just selling colored pieces of paper, even if those pieces of paper are images of child abuse? Seriously what is wrong with you? I get that cryto-anarchist are hip and think they're so cool, but there is a real human cost here. Are you OK with that?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nightwing 5y ago
Images of child abuse are not child abuse. Instead of wasting energy on fighting with windmills and numbers, it would be better to concentrate efforts on catching child abusers, and keeping an eye on people who buy such books, to prevent crimes. The argument is exactly the same as the argument for not banning alcohol, decriminalizing drugs etc. Fight against actual crime instead of wasting resources on ineffective measures that look "morally right".
- obedm 5y ago
  "images of child abuse are not child abuse". Right. Because those images were just created magically? Someone took them. And there's a market for them. If there's no market for such pictures, likely less children will suffer the consequences. Fighting the crime directly is important, but so is doing it indirectly. Read about the suicide rates in the UK by women before and after the country changed the type of gas stoves. Indirect effects can be very strong. Reconsider your morals and logic.
  - cambalache 5y ago
    > If there's no market for such pictures, likely less children will suffer the consequences. The market will always exist: pedophiles. They have been and will be among us until the end of times. > Fighting the crime directly is important, but so is doing it indirectly. Yes, but the difference is so abysmal that you know where is more important to put the effort. Stopping even 1 child of being abused is better than stopping the sharing of 1 million child porn pics.
    - phs318u 5y ago
      You're assuming that fighting one has no relation to fighting the other. Often the way breakthroughs are made here is in the disco very of networks and the roles of key players in the networks. In some cases, CP is shared by trading, with higher value placed on "new" material, which directly creates an incentive to produce CP not just distribute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_International_child_pornography_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_International_child_porno...
      - cambalache 5y ago
        > You're assuming that fighting one has no relation to fighting the other. I am not assuming such a thing (where did you this idea I will never know).
  - nightwing 5y ago
    The law handles drawings and 3d graphics the same way as real images. The attempt to fight indirectly clearly had not succeeded so far. And most often is used as a pretext for introducing mechanisms that afterwards are used for censorship. I don't advocate for one policy or another. In fact i'd be happy if i was wrong and the fight with numbers was actually useful, but logic tells that it isn't.
    - emayljames 5y ago
      DNA is numbers. Your brain cell communication is a number. etc. What a pile of bullshit you are talking about. I'd bet you got something to hide..
    - DanBC 5y ago
      > The law handles drawings and 3d graphics the same way as real images. No it doesn't.
  - dang 5y ago
    Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. They're tedious and nasty and we're trying for curious conversation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - mdpopescu 5y ago
      Seriously, stop with this crap. The people on this forums are some of the people who have the know-how to actually DO something about the internet. If they can't discuss these things, we get the situation that your company seems to like - SV decides what's allowed on the internet and what's not. Those of us outside of the US don't like it very much, and we'd prefer to - you know - talk about it.
      - dang 5y ago
        Obviously when people with know-how want to discuss what they know-how about, that's on topic on HN. But you're underestimating the quantity of plain old internet slag, which is what repetitive flamewars (especially on classic flamewar topics) quickly turn into. "You are a pedo sympathiser and apologist" and similar dreck repels the users who actually know things and who make HN a worthwhile place, so your argument ends in a contradiction. If you'd like to offer advice about HN moderation, breaking the site guidelines while doing so is unlikely to persuade.
- smhost 5y ago
  > Images of child abuse are not child abuse have you talked to those children and asked whether or not they think publically displaying and selling images of their abuse is abuse?
  - chr1 5y ago
    Do you mean that images that are hand drawn or generated by neural net should be handled differently?
    - smhost 5y ago
      probably depends on what the training set was, or whether the hand-drawn image is similar enough to a person's appearance to convince a jury or something, but that's a technical point. i'm objecting on old-fashioned moralist grounds to the psycho who's advocating for legalizing child pornography.
      - nightwing 5y ago
        Judging by history old fashioned moralist grounds tend to be a bit shaky, and often yield their positions;). I don't advocate for one policy or another. In fact i'd be happy if i was wrong and the fight with numbers was actually useful. But i am rather sceptical about it, because the only argument its supporters have is "think of the children, you monster!"
        emayljames 5y ago
        You are a pedo sympathiser and apologist.
- anonAndOn 5y ago
  Anytime those images/videos are shared you are victimizing the abused. Disagree? I would love to see enablers/apologists put some skin in the game (pun intended) and start posting some of their favorite images of them getting abused. Let's see some of that philosophy in action!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- emayljames 5y ago
  This one here, officers.
exporectomy 5y ago
It would help if people critical of the distribution of child porn would make rational arguments without displaying obvious anger but this is a topic that somehow brings out the hate in people. You're just revealing that you don't have the ability to objectively consider what you're talking about and your opinion is worth no more than a Christian's negative opinion of blasphemy. Are you OK with people using God's name in vain? Seriously? The same God that gave you life? See how silly that argument is.
- content_sesh 5y ago
  whoa nelly. asking for a "rational argument" against distributing child porn before launching into one of the strangest combinations of ad hom and strawman arguments I've ever seen on this web site. here I'll break it down for you: The grandparent post said (abbreviating): But hosting isn't a morality question, they are just storing a number, and hosting company should not have to care what interpretations of a number can exist. The parent post responded, saying that this is a flawed line of reasoning, because it (imo purposefully) glosses over an important distinction between hosting child porn and hosting most numbers: but there is a real human cost here hope this helps you come to a decision on whether hosting child porn is bad or not!
  - fishe 5y ago
    In all fairness neither you nor the post that you're trying to back up have made a clear argument yet.
    - emayljames 5y ago
      This one here, officers.
      - dang 5y ago
        Please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait to HN. You've been doing it repeatedly and we ban that sort of account. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
dang 5y ago
Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. They're tedious and nasty and we're trying for curious conversation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nightwing 5y ago

Images of child abuse are not child abuse. Instead of wasting energy on fighting with windmills and numbers, it would be better to concentrate efforts on catching child abusers, and keeping an eye on people who buy such books, to prevent crimes. The argument is exactly the same as the argument for not banning alcohol, decriminalizing drugs etc. Fight against actual crime instead of wasting resources on ineffective measures that look "morally right".

obedm 5y ago
"images of child abuse are not child abuse". Right. Because those images were just created magically? Someone took them. And there's a market for them. If there's no market for such pictures, likely less children will suffer the consequences. Fighting the crime directly is important, but so is doing it indirectly. Read about the suicide rates in the UK by women before and after the country changed the type of gas stoves. Indirect effects can be very strong. Reconsider your morals and logic.
- cambalache 5y ago
  > If there's no market for such pictures, likely less children will suffer the consequences. The market will always exist: pedophiles. They have been and will be among us until the end of times. > Fighting the crime directly is important, but so is doing it indirectly. Yes, but the difference is so abysmal that you know where is more important to put the effort. Stopping even 1 child of being abused is better than stopping the sharing of 1 million child porn pics.
  - phs318u 5y ago
    You're assuming that fighting one has no relation to fighting the other. Often the way breakthroughs are made here is in the disco very of networks and the roles of key players in the networks. In some cases, CP is shared by trading, with higher value placed on "new" material, which directly creates an incentive to produce CP not just distribute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_International_child_pornography_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_International_child_porno...
    - cambalache 5y ago
      > You're assuming that fighting one has no relation to fighting the other. I am not assuming such a thing (where did you this idea I will never know).
- nightwing 5y ago
  The law handles drawings and 3d graphics the same way as real images. The attempt to fight indirectly clearly had not succeeded so far. And most often is used as a pretext for introducing mechanisms that afterwards are used for censorship. I don't advocate for one policy or another. In fact i'd be happy if i was wrong and the fight with numbers was actually useful, but logic tells that it isn't.
  - emayljames 5y ago
    DNA is numbers. Your brain cell communication is a number. etc. What a pile of bullshit you are talking about. I'd bet you got something to hide..
  - DanBC 5y ago
    > The law handles drawings and 3d graphics the same way as real images. No it doesn't.
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. They're tedious and nasty and we're trying for curious conversation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mdpopescu 5y ago
    Seriously, stop with this crap. The people on this forums are some of the people who have the know-how to actually DO something about the internet. If they can't discuss these things, we get the situation that your company seems to like - SV decides what's allowed on the internet and what's not. Those of us outside of the US don't like it very much, and we'd prefer to - you know - talk about it.
    - dang 5y ago
      Obviously when people with know-how want to discuss what they know-how about, that's on topic on HN. But you're underestimating the quantity of plain old internet slag, which is what repetitive flamewars (especially on classic flamewar topics) quickly turn into. "You are a pedo sympathiser and apologist" and similar dreck repels the users who actually know things and who make HN a worthwhile place, so your argument ends in a contradiction. If you'd like to offer advice about HN moderation, breaking the site guidelines while doing so is unlikely to persuade.
smhost 5y ago
> Images of child abuse are not child abuse have you talked to those children and asked whether or not they think publically displaying and selling images of their abuse is abuse?
- chr1 5y ago
  Do you mean that images that are hand drawn or generated by neural net should be handled differently?
  - smhost 5y ago
    probably depends on what the training set was, or whether the hand-drawn image is similar enough to a person's appearance to convince a jury or something, but that's a technical point. i'm objecting on old-fashioned moralist grounds to the psycho who's advocating for legalizing child pornography.
    - nightwing 5y ago
      Judging by history old fashioned moralist grounds tend to be a bit shaky, and often yield their positions;). I don't advocate for one policy or another. In fact i'd be happy if i was wrong and the fight with numbers was actually useful. But i am rather sceptical about it, because the only argument its supporters have is "think of the children, you monster!"
      - emayljames 5y ago
        You are a pedo sympathiser and apologist.
anonAndOn 5y ago
Anytime those images/videos are shared you are victimizing the abused. Disagree? I would love to see enablers/apologists put some skin in the game (pun intended) and start posting some of their favorite images of them getting abused. Let's see some of that philosophy in action!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
emayljames 5y ago
This one here, officers.

exporectomy 5y ago

It would help if people critical of the distribution of child porn would make rational arguments without displaying obvious anger but this is a topic that somehow brings out the hate in people. You're just revealing that you don't have the ability to objectively consider what you're talking about and your opinion is worth no more than a Christian's negative opinion of blasphemy. Are you OK with people using God's name in vain? Seriously? The same God that gave you life? See how silly that argument is.

content_sesh 5y ago
whoa nelly. asking for a "rational argument" against distributing child porn before launching into one of the strangest combinations of ad hom and strawman arguments I've ever seen on this web site. here I'll break it down for you: The grandparent post said (abbreviating): But hosting isn't a morality question, they are just storing a number, and hosting company should not have to care what interpretations of a number can exist. The parent post responded, saying that this is a flawed line of reasoning, because it (imo purposefully) glosses over an important distinction between hosting child porn and hosting most numbers: but there is a real human cost here hope this helps you come to a decision on whether hosting child porn is bad or not!
- fishe 5y ago
  In all fairness neither you nor the post that you're trying to back up have made a clear argument yet.
  - emayljames 5y ago
    This one here, officers.
    - dang 5y ago
      Please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait to HN. You've been doing it repeatedly and we ban that sort of account. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.

dang 5y ago

Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. They're tedious and nasty and we're trying for curious conversation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html