5 ms·

A very literal example of "Won't somebody think of the children!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_th

A very literal example of "Won't somebody think of the children!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children The use of the phrase "Think of the children" in debate a type of logical fallacy and an appeal to emotion. A debater may use the phrase to emotionally sway members of the audience and avoid logical discussion. EG "I know this national missile defense plan has its detractors, but won't someone please think of the children?" Also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jFqhjaGh30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jFqhjaGh30

foldr 5y ago
There’s no logical fallacy here, just a factual disagreement over the extent to which E2E encryption actually puts children at risk. Supposing that it does, that would be reasonable grounds for opposing it (so long as countervailing considerations were also take into account). This particular Simpsons joke is pretty tired at this point, and it's often just used to short circuit any discussion of potential harms to children. I am not in favor of banning E2EE, by the way. It’s just that the claim that E2EE puts children at risk should be met with a carefully considered factual response that respects the intelligence of people who are genuinely concerned about child sex abuse, rather than this reflexive ironic cry of “think of the children!”.
- krageon 5y ago
  > should be met with a carefully considered factual response Engaging with baseless propaganda preying on the unthinking parts of everyone by "carefully considered factual response" means you lose. Every single time. For this reason it is a naive strategy.
  - foldr 5y ago
    The point is not to engage with propaganda, but with the ordinary people who are genuinely concerned about child sex abuse enabled by social media. This is a real problem, so I don't think it's fair to talk about 'preying on [people's] unthinking parts'. I should think that there must be even less to be gained by responding smugly with rote slogans and links to clips from the Simpsons. Who is going to be persuaded of anything by that? What you need to show is either that (i) kids are already pretty safe online, or (ii) that the situation can be significantly improved without increased surveillance, or (iii) that the current level of child sexual abuse is a price worth paying to preserve important freedoms. But making one of those arguments would require actual thought and effort.
- sbuk 5y ago
  The issue is that it looks as though the very real issue of children being exploited is being used by the UK government to undermine E2EE. This is frankly vile, but given the vileness of this government, not at all surprising. Of course, the Murdock media will label anyone challenging this stance as an apologist.
  - foldr 5y ago
    To a lot of people on HN, it's obvious that the freedom is to use E2EE is fundamental, and that hardly any other consideration could override that. To a lot of people who aren't on HN, it's obvious that more needs to be done to combat child sexual abuse online. Rather than fuming at the government, it would be more useful in the long run if people could come up with actual ideas for combating child sexual abuse that don't require increased surveillance. Otherwise we are left with the unattractive (to most people) alternative to just ignoring the problem. I mean sure, the government might have bad motivations in this instance. But there is a real problem that a lot of regular people are sincerely concerned about, without sinister ulterior motivates.
- stephen_g 5y ago
  I would say that the implication that enabling more surveillance == safety is a fallacy. It’s assumed by the people pushing these kind of things, but is not necessarily true.
- zelphirkalt 5y ago
  > I am not in favor of banning E2E, by the way. It’s just that the claim that E2E puts children at risk should be met with a carefully considered factual response that respects the intelligence of people who are genuinely concerned about child sex abuse, rather than this reflexive ironic cry of “think of the children!”. Yes, we should all argue properly ... If only politicians were educated enough about the things they try to push or prevent, they could actually do that. Anyway, even if we discussed this properly, it would only answer half the question. The other half is: "Are children safer without that E2E encryption?" Most likely not, as they themselves send each other pictures and stuff, which can then be intercepted by some people. Everything they communicate using their spy phones, ah sorry, I meant "smart phones" of course, at their young age of -- well, what age? maybe 6 or 7? Or even younger? -- will be potentially up for grabs. And then that is only the question about children. That is one tiny speck of the whole picture, which is not discussed. So yes, we should argue this properly, but also we should then open up the whole debate about society as a whole. There is a huge debate to be had there, before anyone should even consider making any decisions.
- deadbunny 5y ago
  Surely it would be quite easy for them to provide statistics of how many cases of $crimes were solved/stopped because of unencrypted messaging. My impression seems to be that it's almost always reported long after the fact or some vigilante posing as a child. Neither of which would be prevented by e2ee.
tzs 5y ago
That's only half of it. Someone will propose addressing an actual real thing that actually is a serious threat to children and someone else will mockingly and with a Calculon level of overacting say "Won't someone think of the children!", using it as a kind of ad hominem.
- jonplackett 5y ago
  OK. Let’s try a proper logical response. Right now is there child exploitation? Yes. Even though FB haven’t yet enabled E2E encryption. So what good will banning it do? There will always be ways to encrypt communication for criminals. And there will also always be ways to remain very anonymous online. The internet is just not set up to prevent it. Further, banning all encryption is just a non starter. Further still, having strong encryption except where law enforcement would like it to be breakable is also impossible. It’s just technically not doable. Whenever people say ‘but give us a way’ the answer is. There is no way. It can’t be done. It’s either encrypted or not. They’re the only options. So instead of any sensible, workable plan some technically illiterate politicians have deliberately chosen the most controversial topic they can think of - child abuse - something that has been happening since forever without any E2E encryption (did those catholic priests need E2E encryption?) and blamed it on E2E encryption in the hope that emotion will override people’s logic and give them the power to read whatever online communications they like, presumable with some form of weakened / backdoored encryption that will, inevitably, be used for nefarious purposes either by our own government (see Snowden) or criminals / foreign governments who figure out how to exploit it This is an emotion over logic argument and therefore surely a perfect example of ‘won’t anyone think of the children.

foldr 5y ago

There’s no logical fallacy here, just a factual disagreement over the extent to which E2E encryption actually puts children at risk. Supposing that it does, that would be reasonable grounds for opposing it (so long as countervailing considerations were also take into account). This particular Simpsons joke is pretty tired at this point, and it's often just used to short circuit any discussion of potential harms to children. I am not in favor of banning E2EE, by the way. It’s just that the claim that E2EE puts children at risk should be met with a carefully considered factual response that respects the intelligence of people who are genuinely concerned about child sex abuse, rather than this reflexive ironic cry of “think of the children!”.

krageon 5y ago
> should be met with a carefully considered factual response Engaging with baseless propaganda preying on the unthinking parts of everyone by "carefully considered factual response" means you lose. Every single time. For this reason it is a naive strategy.
- foldr 5y ago
  The point is not to engage with propaganda, but with the ordinary people who are genuinely concerned about child sex abuse enabled by social media. This is a real problem, so I don't think it's fair to talk about 'preying on [people's] unthinking parts'. I should think that there must be even less to be gained by responding smugly with rote slogans and links to clips from the Simpsons. Who is going to be persuaded of anything by that? What you need to show is either that (i) kids are already pretty safe online, or (ii) that the situation can be significantly improved without increased surveillance, or (iii) that the current level of child sexual abuse is a price worth paying to preserve important freedoms. But making one of those arguments would require actual thought and effort.
sbuk 5y ago
The issue is that it looks as though the very real issue of children being exploited is being used by the UK government to undermine E2EE. This is frankly vile, but given the vileness of this government, not at all surprising. Of course, the Murdock media will label anyone challenging this stance as an apologist.
- foldr 5y ago
  To a lot of people on HN, it's obvious that the freedom is to use E2EE is fundamental, and that hardly any other consideration could override that. To a lot of people who aren't on HN, it's obvious that more needs to be done to combat child sexual abuse online. Rather than fuming at the government, it would be more useful in the long run if people could come up with actual ideas for combating child sexual abuse that don't require increased surveillance. Otherwise we are left with the unattractive (to most people) alternative to just ignoring the problem. I mean sure, the government might have bad motivations in this instance. But there is a real problem that a lot of regular people are sincerely concerned about, without sinister ulterior motivates.
stephen_g 5y ago
I would say that the implication that enabling more surveillance == safety is a fallacy. It’s assumed by the people pushing these kind of things, but is not necessarily true.
zelphirkalt 5y ago
> I am not in favor of banning E2E, by the way. It’s just that the claim that E2E puts children at risk should be met with a carefully considered factual response that respects the intelligence of people who are genuinely concerned about child sex abuse, rather than this reflexive ironic cry of “think of the children!”. Yes, we should all argue properly ... If only politicians were educated enough about the things they try to push or prevent, they could actually do that. Anyway, even if we discussed this properly, it would only answer half the question. The other half is: "Are children safer without that E2E encryption?" Most likely not, as they themselves send each other pictures and stuff, which can then be intercepted by some people. Everything they communicate using their spy phones, ah sorry, I meant "smart phones" of course, at their young age of -- well, what age? maybe 6 or 7? Or even younger? -- will be potentially up for grabs. And then that is only the question about children. That is one tiny speck of the whole picture, which is not discussed. So yes, we should argue this properly, but also we should then open up the whole debate about society as a whole. There is a huge debate to be had there, before anyone should even consider making any decisions.
deadbunny 5y ago
Surely it would be quite easy for them to provide statistics of how many cases of $crimes were solved/stopped because of unencrypted messaging. My impression seems to be that it's almost always reported long after the fact or some vigilante posing as a child. Neither of which would be prevented by e2ee.

tzs 5y ago

That's only half of it. Someone will propose addressing an actual real thing that actually is a serious threat to children and someone else will mockingly and with a Calculon level of overacting say "Won't someone think of the children!", using it as a kind of ad hominem.

jonplackett 5y ago
OK. Let’s try a proper logical response. Right now is there child exploitation? Yes. Even though FB haven’t yet enabled E2E encryption. So what good will banning it do? There will always be ways to encrypt communication for criminals. And there will also always be ways to remain very anonymous online. The internet is just not set up to prevent it. Further, banning all encryption is just a non starter. Further still, having strong encryption except where law enforcement would like it to be breakable is also impossible. It’s just technically not doable. Whenever people say ‘but give us a way’ the answer is. There is no way. It can’t be done. It’s either encrypted or not. They’re the only options. So instead of any sensible, workable plan some technically illiterate politicians have deliberately chosen the most controversial topic they can think of - child abuse - something that has been happening since forever without any E2E encryption (did those catholic priests need E2E encryption?) and blamed it on E2E encryption in the hope that emotion will override people’s logic and give them the power to read whatever online communications they like, presumable with some form of weakened / backdoored encryption that will, inevitably, be used for nefarious purposes either by our own government (see Snowden) or criminals / foreign governments who figure out how to exploit it This is an emotion over logic argument and therefore surely a perfect example of ‘won’t anyone think of the children.