> The expectation it creates are stronger than what can be induced by publications or people close to those affected. Yes. The remote 'big other' can exert m

> The expectation it creates are stronger than what can be induced by publications or people close to those affected. Yes. The remote 'big other' can exert more affect than our closest friends or even parents. It fuses group approval/awareness with the predator. I think that's why authoritarian leftists dislike the traditional "nuclear family". > Child protection becomes an issue about how to sabotage encryption. The four horsemen of the infopocalypse is a parochial spectre. It's up to us hackers to push the conversation beyond that as quickly as possible. Understanding the ways that technology facilitates abuse that has nothing to do with CSAM and kiddy-fiddling nonces - and making people more aware of that - is important in the struggle for humane technology. > acceptance does not rely on their agreeableness. Beautifully put. Exactly this. > I don't think the solution is becoming a luddite. Be careful even saying that. The principle trick that techno-zealots use is levelling the "accusation" of neo-Ludism, and trying to conflate reasoned tech-critique with regressive savagery. It's an old trick, but still quite effective as you just demonstrated :) Besides the Luddites, as a socio-cultural phenomenon, were much less two dimensional than widely supposed. See Cory Doctorow's recent essay [1] on that. [1] https://onezero.medium.com/science-fiction-is-a-luddite-literature-56ed9cfc5470 https://onezero.medium.com/science-fiction-is-a-luddite-lite...