> I personally would not make that tradeoff, as I do not want to host a website that distributes CSAM. When you say that it means people who would do want to h

> I personally would not make that tradeoff, as I do not want to host a website that distributes CSAM. When you say that it means people who would do want to host a website that distributes CSAM. The reality is people are ok with unknowingly being one of many many places that all types of "horrible things" can be hosted because when we look back at history "horrible things" has a very flexible meaning. We can all agree CSAM is horrible, but what you're failing to understand is that nothing prevents politically unfavored statements from being "horrible things". And this is a one-way ticket here, once Apple rolls this out there's no longer a way to confirm they're not signaling to authorities over other types of content. This is especially problematic in countries where Apple has already been known to cooperate with oppressive regimes... - Like I said, even painting allowing matches and allowing forest fires as a "trade-off" is disingenuous. There are a lot of things that allow more CSAM, again like any form of E2EE messaging. In the end your argument boils down to "it reduces CSAM", but that logic is just making a paperclip machine. Cameras are used for CSAM, so less cameras is less CSAM. Photos might be physically distributed so now lets have printers scan for specific hashes too. Encryption prevents ISPs from detecting CSAM, let's block https... By itself it's just not a useful argument.