4 ms·

Thanks for the statistics. To me, these numbers are significant. Maybe Whole Foods or maybe some popular restaurants are better candidates for working on impro

Thanks for the statistics. To me, these numbers are significant. Maybe Whole Foods or maybe some popular restaurants are better candidates for working on improving nutrition in public schools? Why don’t we let apple contribute where it thinks it can. Maybe with apple that number goes down from 10,000 to 2,000. Wouldn’t that be a celebrated outcome?

emptysongglass 5y ago
We cannot stop all crime. There will never be a day where we stop all crime. It is not an achievable goal nor is it desirable because what constitutes a crime is written by the governments of the world and we have tens of thousands of years of reigning authorities to tell us that they will abuse the power they are invested with to protect themselves. Authority and its keeping is the number two law of the jungle. Any power handed over in the name of security, "to stop all crime", is an affirmation, a concretization of its future abuse. You speak of the calculated cost of preventing child abuse as acceptable. What of the abuse of an entire people? This is not handwavy theoreticals. We already know what happens, in the US, when you push an agenda in the name of protecting the children: it looks like FOSTA/SESTA, which has driven sex workers of America underground and exposed them to more violence, more danger in a profession already one of the most murderous professions in the world. Those murders, in the name of protecting the young, are at the feet of the people who would protect the children with more authority.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ctvo 5y ago
> To me, these numbers are significant. What would be insignificant? 1 child? 100? There are 73,000,000 children (under 18) in the US alone. 10,000 is .0001% of that population. > Why don’t we let apple contribute where it thinks it can. Apple is the most profitable company in the world. It's a company that prides itself on its imagination and innovation, I wouldn't discount their ability to come up with something. > Maybe with apple that number goes down from 10,000 to 2,000. Wouldn’t that be a celebrated outcome? No, it's not. We make trade-offs all the time. The possible harm to Apple's user base is not worth the possibility that this reduces child abuse. There's a possibility these people move on to another platform and this does nothing. To get that number down Apple creates an entry point for violating the privacy of half a billion users worldwide. Many of them are in China, where pressure from the government has already moved Apple in directions that are harmful to its customers[1]. 1 - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-ce...

emptysongglass 5y ago

We cannot stop all crime. There will never be a day where we stop all crime. It is not an achievable goal nor is it desirable because what constitutes a crime is written by the governments of the world and we have tens of thousands of years of reigning authorities to tell us that they will abuse the power they are invested with to protect themselves. Authority and its keeping is the number two law of the jungle. Any power handed over in the name of security, "to stop all crime", is an affirmation, a concretization of its future abuse. You speak of the calculated cost of preventing child abuse as acceptable. What of the abuse of an entire people? This is not handwavy theoreticals. We already know what happens, in the US, when you push an agenda in the name of protecting the children: it looks like FOSTA/SESTA, which has driven sex workers of America underground and exposed them to more violence, more danger in a profession already one of the most murderous professions in the world. Those murders, in the name of protecting the young, are at the feet of the people who would protect the children with more authority.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ctvo 5y ago

> To me, these numbers are significant. What would be insignificant? 1 child? 100? There are 73,000,000 children (under 18) in the US alone. 10,000 is .0001% of that population. > Why don’t we let apple contribute where it thinks it can. Apple is the most profitable company in the world. It's a company that prides itself on its imagination and innovation, I wouldn't discount their ability to come up with something. > Maybe with apple that number goes down from 10,000 to 2,000. Wouldn’t that be a celebrated outcome? No, it's not. We make trade-offs all the time. The possible harm to Apple's user base is not worth the possibility that this reduces child abuse. There's a possibility these people move on to another platform and this does nothing. To get that number down Apple creates an entry point for violating the privacy of half a billion users worldwide. Many of them are in China, where pressure from the government has already moved Apple in directions that are harmful to its customers[1]. 1 - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-ce...