5 ms·

I get that Ashton is trying to do the right thing here. The problem is the solutions are just so short sighted. I dug through his website and came across a blog

I get that Ashton is trying to do the right thing here. The problem is the solutions are just so short sighted. I dug through his website and came across a blog post [1] they made blasting Facebook for implementing E2E on Facebook/IG Messenger. On the one hand yes they are technically correct, but at the same time the argument is so incredibly short sighted. Yes if we ban E2E then it will solve the problem of CSAM, but at the same time it will open the door to a host of other consequences. Honestly the argument sounds alot like the fictitious argument we make here: "cars kill X number of kids per year, let's ban cars!". [1]: https://www.thorn.org/blog/encryption-trend-threatens-child-safety-gains/ https://www.thorn.org/blog/encryption-trend-threatens-child-...

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
>Honestly the argument sounds alot like the fictitious argument we make here: "cars kill X number of kids per year, let's ban cars!". A) There's no shortage of people make that argument unironically B) If you just change "ban" to "tax to the point that the common man finds another solution" (which is the same sort of "some animals are more equal" situation that dragnets with selective enforcement create) the number of those people increases by an order of magnitude.
loeg 4y ago
Banning E2E doesn't "solve the problem of CSAM," anyway.
cure 4y ago
> I get that Ashton is trying to do the right thing here. The problem is the solutions are just so short sighted. I dug through his website and came across a blog post [1] they made blasting Facebook for implementing E2E on Facebook/IG Messenger. I would argue that he's just trying to make money. Lobbying politicians so that a requirement for a product becomes enshrined in law, while your organization just happens to be providing that product? For a fee, of course. This is just plain old greed in a wrapper of virtue signaling. Yuck.
- _delibash_ 4y ago
  Sounds about right.
- prox 4y ago
  Also technology is no substitute for a society that invests in a trusting, caring culture, where child abuse can be picked upon by teachers or other sectors that deal with children.
- _fat_santa 4y ago
  > I would argue that he's just trying to make money I don't think he's doing it for the money. If he just wanted money, staying in Hollywood would be much more lucrative.
  - heavenlyblue 4y ago
    He’s probably just an idiot with money working for the idea, and his supporters getting a salary for doing an ethically vague job
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> Honestly the argument sounds alot like the fictitious argument we make here: "cars kill X number of kids per year, let's ban cars!". Giving the government or some other entity access to all of your media is not analogous to the physical reality of children being at more risk due to being around more moving cars (especially since those cars have increased in height and have reduced visibility). It is objectively true that children who grow in up a village without cars are safer while playing outside by themselves than a village where large cars are zipping by at 40mph. Whether or not the benefits of cars are worth the loss of free movement for children is a different discussion.
- riversflow 4y ago
  What? You lose nothing but a perception of privacy in the theoretical case of a backdoor to encryption, we have rule of law ffs. Without cars the human race is limited to moving <20 mph and what you can carry on your back. If we ban cars tomorrow society grinds to a halt, there will be mass starvation. If we ban e2e encryption in consumer products tomorrow nothing changes.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    >What? You lose nothing but a perception of privacy in the theoretical case of a backdoor to encryption, we have rule of law ffs. We lost that perception years ago when Snowden revealed it was all backdoored anyway. I do not know what rule of law you are referring to. >If we ban cars tomorrow society grinds to a halt, there will be mass starvation. If we ban e2e encryption in consumer products tomorrow nothing changes. I do not think anyone serious is referring to banning all cars period. The discussion is more like creating more spaces where large vehicles are de prioritized or not allowed and walking and bicycling are prioritized such that there is greatly reduced risk of being run over. Also included are probably returning cars to smaller sizes and to reduce the severity of injuries and increased visibility. Banning e2e does change something. Maybe not visibly, and not exactly tomorrow, but it certainly enables and progresses the mission of those wanting to limit civil rights.
    - 4y ago
throwawayboise 4y ago
I mean, it's Ashton Kutcher. He has a certain name recognition to be sure, but he's an actor. What has he ever done to show that he's some kind of deep thinker on the subject of child exploitation? I'll grant that his emotional motivations are genuine, but not that he actually has any workable solutions to offer.
- romanhn 4y ago
  I suggest a bit more research into his background. This is something he has been working on for the past ten years, at least: https://www.thorn.org/about-our-fight-against-sexual-exploitation-of-children/ https://www.thorn.org/about-our-fight-against-sexual-exploit.... EDIT: Actually established in 2009 per Wikipedia - a good source to see that there's a lot more to him than just being an actor (not that there's anything wrong with that).
raxxorrax 4y ago
> Yes if we ban E2E then it will solve the problem of CSAM No, because content like CSAM will immediately switch channels and you cannot really ban encryption.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
These sort of issues are susceptible to framing problems. For instance, "cars kill X number of kids per year, let's ban cars!"'s mirror framing is "how many children's lives is car driving worth?" It's something to be on the lookout for in these types of discussions if not to avoid then to recognize.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

>Honestly the argument sounds alot like the fictitious argument we make here: "cars kill X number of kids per year, let's ban cars!". A) There's no shortage of people make that argument unironically B) If you just change "ban" to "tax to the point that the common man finds another solution" (which is the same sort of "some animals are more equal" situation that dragnets with selective enforcement create) the number of those people increases by an order of magnitude.

loeg 4y ago

Banning E2E doesn't "solve the problem of CSAM," anyway.

cure 4y ago

> I get that Ashton is trying to do the right thing here. The problem is the solutions are just so short sighted. I dug through his website and came across a blog post [1] they made blasting Facebook for implementing E2E on Facebook/IG Messenger. I would argue that he's just trying to make money. Lobbying politicians so that a requirement for a product becomes enshrined in law, while your organization just happens to be providing that product? For a fee, of course. This is just plain old greed in a wrapper of virtue signaling. Yuck.

_delibash_ 4y ago
Sounds about right.
prox 4y ago
Also technology is no substitute for a society that invests in a trusting, caring culture, where child abuse can be picked upon by teachers or other sectors that deal with children.
_fat_santa 4y ago
> I would argue that he's just trying to make money I don't think he's doing it for the money. If he just wanted money, staying in Hollywood would be much more lucrative.
- heavenlyblue 4y ago
  He’s probably just an idiot with money working for the idea, and his supporters getting a salary for doing an ethically vague job

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> Honestly the argument sounds alot like the fictitious argument we make here: "cars kill X number of kids per year, let's ban cars!". Giving the government or some other entity access to all of your media is not analogous to the physical reality of children being at more risk due to being around more moving cars (especially since those cars have increased in height and have reduced visibility). It is objectively true that children who grow in up a village without cars are safer while playing outside by themselves than a village where large cars are zipping by at 40mph. Whether or not the benefits of cars are worth the loss of free movement for children is a different discussion.

riversflow 4y ago
What? You lose nothing but a perception of privacy in the theoretical case of a backdoor to encryption, we have rule of law ffs. Without cars the human race is limited to moving <20 mph and what you can carry on your back. If we ban cars tomorrow society grinds to a halt, there will be mass starvation. If we ban e2e encryption in consumer products tomorrow nothing changes.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  >What? You lose nothing but a perception of privacy in the theoretical case of a backdoor to encryption, we have rule of law ffs. We lost that perception years ago when Snowden revealed it was all backdoored anyway. I do not know what rule of law you are referring to. >If we ban cars tomorrow society grinds to a halt, there will be mass starvation. If we ban e2e encryption in consumer products tomorrow nothing changes. I do not think anyone serious is referring to banning all cars period. The discussion is more like creating more spaces where large vehicles are de prioritized or not allowed and walking and bicycling are prioritized such that there is greatly reduced risk of being run over. Also included are probably returning cars to smaller sizes and to reduce the severity of injuries and increased visibility. Banning e2e does change something. Maybe not visibly, and not exactly tomorrow, but it certainly enables and progresses the mission of those wanting to limit civil rights.
  - 4y ago

throwawayboise 4y ago

I mean, it's Ashton Kutcher. He has a certain name recognition to be sure, but he's an actor. What has he ever done to show that he's some kind of deep thinker on the subject of child exploitation? I'll grant that his emotional motivations are genuine, but not that he actually has any workable solutions to offer.

romanhn 4y ago
I suggest a bit more research into his background. This is something he has been working on for the past ten years, at least: https://www.thorn.org/about-our-fight-against-sexual-exploitation-of-children/ https://www.thorn.org/about-our-fight-against-sexual-exploit.... EDIT: Actually established in 2009 per Wikipedia - a good source to see that there's a lot more to him than just being an actor (not that there's anything wrong with that).

raxxorrax 4y ago

> Yes if we ban E2E then it will solve the problem of CSAM No, because content like CSAM will immediately switch channels and you cannot really ban encryption.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

These sort of issues are susceptible to framing problems. For instance, "cars kill X number of kids per year, let's ban cars!"'s mirror framing is "how many children's lives is car driving worth?" It's something to be on the lookout for in these types of discussions if not to avoid then to recognize.