3 ms·

I wonder how much people there actually are who don't yet know child porn is a classic bullshit excuse governments use every time they want more control over th

I wonder how much people there actually are who don't yet know child porn is a classic bullshit excuse governments use every time they want more control over the Internet. It's so classic, so blatant it feels cringy already. Not even for a second I would believe they do this to actually protect children.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago
Whenever a politician invokes "think of the children", ask them about their funding of Child Protection Services. Any political action that's said to be under the umbrella of "think of the children" that doesn't provide additional funding to existing Child Protection Services is for reasons other than child protection. Additionally, it's actively working against helping children because the funds for "this new thing", if the goal really was for actually protecting vulnerable children, would be better spent on improving the coverage that existing Child Protection Services provide. A close friend of mine is in a position that requires "mandatory reporting" training, and they say it's relatively pointless because Child Services only has the resources to investigate cases in which the child's life is in immediate danger. This may be somewhere along the scale of hyperbole, but I doubt it's too far from reality. Of course, removing children from danger is often removing them from their parents / legal guardians, which comes with its own set of risks. Either way, funding boots-on-the-ground work with leads from local social workers, early childhood educators, teachers has to be the best way to actually protect at-risk children.
- dqpb 5y ago
  > Of course, removing children from danger is often removing them from their parents / legal guardians, which comes with its own set of risks. What number of false positives would you tolerate?
  - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
    I genuinely do not know the answer. But also, what would you define as false positive? It's blurry definitions all the way down, and that's part of the reason politics doesn't like this problem and would rather argue technology and punishment after-the-fact than actual protection / prevention. Nuance is expensive and doesn't play well to the crowd.
    - dqpb 5y ago
      If I take a picture of my adorable toddler playing naked in a sprinkler in the backyard and CPS calls that child porn and takes him away from me, that's a false positive. I don't know much about abusers, but my hunch is that they know they are abusers and will more-or-less accept being caught. But what I know about non-abusive parents is if you take their kids away, it's war.
      - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
        Two things: 1. I thought you were referring to false positives as a result of my favoring funding of existing Child Services working from mandatory reporting from local relevant professions. 2. My commentary about taking children from parents having its own set of risks was more along the lines of trauma to the child, in that even in if the parent/ child relationship is abusive and harmful, it's such a strong bond that severing it, or restricting it can cause psychological issues. Totally agree with your commentary above regarding any attempt to remove kids from non-abusive parents. Absolutely scorched earth nuclear war. Also, it would actively be a form of child abuse by introducing unnecessary trauma to the child(ren) and possibly instilling a lifelong suspicion (at best) of authority. As a result of that train of thought, my answer is: no false positives would be acceptable. Fundamentally, I'm against personal photos being scanned at all; false positives being one reason, and the broad misapplication of bans by 'big tech' in their implementations of automated systems detecting breaches of policy, and the overall "computer says no" brick wall offered as recourse, being another.
y04nn 5y ago
True, it even has a name "Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse". If it was about protecting the children there would be more prevention toward the children to make them aware and report any inappropriate act to a teacher, parent, relative that they can trust. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

BLKNSLVR 5y ago

Whenever a politician invokes "think of the children", ask them about their funding of Child Protection Services. Any political action that's said to be under the umbrella of "think of the children" that doesn't provide additional funding to existing Child Protection Services is for reasons other than child protection. Additionally, it's actively working against helping children because the funds for "this new thing", if the goal really was for actually protecting vulnerable children, would be better spent on improving the coverage that existing Child Protection Services provide. A close friend of mine is in a position that requires "mandatory reporting" training, and they say it's relatively pointless because Child Services only has the resources to investigate cases in which the child's life is in immediate danger. This may be somewhere along the scale of hyperbole, but I doubt it's too far from reality. Of course, removing children from danger is often removing them from their parents / legal guardians, which comes with its own set of risks. Either way, funding boots-on-the-ground work with leads from local social workers, early childhood educators, teachers has to be the best way to actually protect at-risk children.

dqpb 5y ago
> Of course, removing children from danger is often removing them from their parents / legal guardians, which comes with its own set of risks. What number of false positives would you tolerate?
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  I genuinely do not know the answer. But also, what would you define as false positive? It's blurry definitions all the way down, and that's part of the reason politics doesn't like this problem and would rather argue technology and punishment after-the-fact than actual protection / prevention. Nuance is expensive and doesn't play well to the crowd.
  - dqpb 5y ago
    If I take a picture of my adorable toddler playing naked in a sprinkler in the backyard and CPS calls that child porn and takes him away from me, that's a false positive. I don't know much about abusers, but my hunch is that they know they are abusers and will more-or-less accept being caught. But what I know about non-abusive parents is if you take their kids away, it's war.
    - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
      Two things: 1. I thought you were referring to false positives as a result of my favoring funding of existing Child Services working from mandatory reporting from local relevant professions. 2. My commentary about taking children from parents having its own set of risks was more along the lines of trauma to the child, in that even in if the parent/ child relationship is abusive and harmful, it's such a strong bond that severing it, or restricting it can cause psychological issues. Totally agree with your commentary above regarding any attempt to remove kids from non-abusive parents. Absolutely scorched earth nuclear war. Also, it would actively be a form of child abuse by introducing unnecessary trauma to the child(ren) and possibly instilling a lifelong suspicion (at best) of authority. As a result of that train of thought, my answer is: no false positives would be acceptable. Fundamentally, I'm against personal photos being scanned at all; false positives being one reason, and the broad misapplication of bans by 'big tech' in their implementations of automated systems detecting breaches of policy, and the overall "computer says no" brick wall offered as recourse, being another.

y04nn 5y ago

True, it even has a name "Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse". If it was about protecting the children there would be more prevention toward the children to make them aware and report any inappropriate act to a teacher, parent, relative that they can trust. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]