3 ms·

Not commenting on any specific emerging technical measures, I believe in general detecting & reporting CSAM possession, while not without side-effects, is proba

Not commenting on any specific emerging technical measures, I believe in general detecting & reporting CSAM possession, while not without side-effects, is probably one of the very few ways to reduce child abuse (including that at home) without large-scale intrusive monitoring of family affairs. (Other ways could be commercials encouraging abused children to complain, presumably of limited effectiveness.) That said, addressing the underlying causes of abuse (which could probably only be done very indirectly, such as by improving general well-being and working on mental health issues among the population) as the proper long-term solution shouldn’t be ignored.

candiodari 5y ago
I'm trying to make the point that the state itself abuses "protected" kids. The living conditions of "protected" kids are horrible, abusive and destructive. Watch a movie like: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2370248/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2370248/ Conditions for kids in state care are little better than a trailer camp. Education in "juvie" is often better than that offered to victims of child abuse (which, yes, causes some kids to commit a serious crime to get some education. Why? It's the only way they can guarantee a placement, or a new placement (because some places in youth services are horrible, EVEN by the very low standards of youth services), or the opposite: guarantee a stop to constant changes in placement). The kids are kept there by force regardless of whether it's juvie or not (which is just one more reason violence is a constant in the life of these kids). I find it absurd that the government, abusing kids in their care, have the slightest interest in using CSAM detection to protect kids. I don't want to say it, not for all, but for the vast majority of abuse, a kid is better off abused at home. Not because that's good for them. Because youth services and state abuse is far worse than the worst they face at home. Detection of CSAM forcibly brings more kids into this system and, frankly, it's almost always better to leave them in an abusive family (esp. because most cases are about possession of CSAM, not about abuse of their own kids. Is this ideal? Of course not! Is it better than youth services? Absolutely) https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583 https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583 Without an extreme rise in the minimum standards of care for kids in state care, I am entirely opposed to any and all attempts to detect child abuse. It makes things far worse for more kids instead of better. And, frankly, I question the intent of people doing the detection. Because every effort just comes down to being one more "trap" for these kids to fall into. Do X (or have it done to you), and you get thrown into the hell that is youth services. You want to help kids? Care well for specific kids. Adopt them. Make some kids yourself with a partner. DO NOT interfere in the lives of other children unless you're willing to make the full commitment: have the kid living with you, whatever stunts they pull, whatever beliefs they have, whether they accept you or not, for AT LEAST 10 years (ie. until 25 or so). If you're not willing to do that, there is no form of help those kids need or want from you. Go and help kids with homework in your local school. Help out at a hospital. Whatever.

candiodari 5y ago

I'm trying to make the point that the state itself abuses "protected" kids. The living conditions of "protected" kids are horrible, abusive and destructive. Watch a movie like: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2370248/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2370248/ Conditions for kids in state care are little better than a trailer camp. Education in "juvie" is often better than that offered to victims of child abuse (which, yes, causes some kids to commit a serious crime to get some education. Why? It's the only way they can guarantee a placement, or a new placement (because some places in youth services are horrible, EVEN by the very low standards of youth services), or the opposite: guarantee a stop to constant changes in placement). The kids are kept there by force regardless of whether it's juvie or not (which is just one more reason violence is a constant in the life of these kids). I find it absurd that the government, abusing kids in their care, have the slightest interest in using CSAM detection to protect kids. I don't want to say it, not for all, but for the vast majority of abuse, a kid is better off abused at home. Not because that's good for them. Because youth services and state abuse is far worse than the worst they face at home. Detection of CSAM forcibly brings more kids into this system and, frankly, it's almost always better to leave them in an abusive family (esp. because most cases are about possession of CSAM, not about abuse of their own kids. Is this ideal? Of course not! Is it better than youth services? Absolutely) https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583 https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583 Without an extreme rise in the minimum standards of care for kids in state care, I am entirely opposed to any and all attempts to detect child abuse. It makes things far worse for more kids instead of better. And, frankly, I question the intent of people doing the detection. Because every effort just comes down to being one more "trap" for these kids to fall into. Do X (or have it done to you), and you get thrown into the hell that is youth services. You want to help kids? Care well for specific kids. Adopt them. Make some kids yourself with a partner. DO NOT interfere in the lives of other children unless you're willing to make the full commitment: have the kid living with you, whatever stunts they pull, whatever beliefs they have, whether they accept you or not, for AT LEAST 10 years (ie. until 25 or so). If you're not willing to do that, there is no form of help those kids need or want from you. Go and help kids with homework in your local school. Help out at a hospital. Whatever.