> 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 respon

> 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.