5 ms·
"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 the
by obedm 6y 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 6y 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 6y agoYou'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 6y 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 6y agoThe 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 6y agoDNA 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 6y ago> The law handles drawings and 3d graphics the same way as real images. No it doesn't.
- dang 6y agoPlease 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 6y agoSeriously, 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 6y agoObviously 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.