2 ms·
>probably figures it's a valid tradeoff if it helps reduce child exploitation to any meaningful degree. Without actual numbers and rational arguments, this is
by BlargMcLarg 4y ago
>probably figures it's a valid tradeoff if it helps reduce child exploitation to any meaningful degree.
Without actual numbers and rational arguments, this is so subjective it is moot.
People arguing against this aren't against fighting child sexual abuse or even sexual abuse in general. But the entire thing is so riddled with "what ifs" and more, that it's a hard sell to justify another step to the road of potential total control.
Every parent wants their children to have as many lifelines as possible in case something bad happens, to let them experiment safely without predators lurking. What we should be asking is how much we're willing to give up for each lifeline, and at what point we have to accept nature (or in this case, society) just isn't going to be fair.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y agoIt seems it's just a matter of having different principles and values than others at their very core. To wit, FTA: "In recent months, Johansson has stressed that privacy and encryption should not stand in the way of law enforcement" my values, on the other hand, are the exact opposite (law enforcement should not stand in the way of privacy and encryption), and thus dictate a different preference.
- heavenlyblue 4y agoI mean you could also say the same about 13 virgins at the end of someone’s life. Not every value is as other value.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y agotrue, but when resolving a disagreement (not necessarily agreeing), as this discussion was, I find it most productive to identify the root cause.