4 ms·

> "Saying that this is about child protection is a blatant lie." Why do you think this? What evidence would convince you that they are sincerely trying to prot

> "Saying that this is about child protection is a blatant lie." Why do you think this? What evidence would convince you that they are sincerely trying to protect children? Helen Lovejoy wasn't lying, she was sincerely (but irrationally) concerned for the children. HNers believe this conspiracy theory about their own governments (that they are deliberately secretly plotting to be despotic, and using the cover of trying to protect children) with no actual evidence, just a lot of winks and eyebrow wiggling. Complete abdication of rational thinking.

wyager 4y ago
> Why do you think this? Anyone with a bayesian world-model thinks this. It's one of the most tired and obvious lies of all time, to the point that "think of the children" is a well-known trope. > What evidence would convince you that they are sincerely trying to protect children? Their behavior would have to actually reflect such a stance.
imtringued 4y ago
This technology is ineffective at saving children and highly effective at ruining more lives than it could theoretically save even with perfect conditions.
- donkeyd 4y ago
  Yes, both true, but in no way contrary to the statement you're replying to. Politicians in general are highly ignorant on technology and have no clue about the impact of ideas like this. They get advice from advisory boards populated by political science students that had internships at IT companies and are now 'advisor on AI in government'. Sometimes they get external advice from expensive consultants that tell them what they want to hear, especially if they think they might be able to sell more projects afterwards. So, a politician who objectively wants to protect children in a modern world will come up with dumb ideas like this and get confirmation that it's not a dumb idea. It's Hanlon's Razor at work.
vaylian 4y ago
> Why do you think this? Because Zensursula has tried to pull off this trick before. Her party is very eager to introduce more surveillance and they like to brush off technical and ethical concerns.
concordDance 4y ago
> Why do you think this? Because it's happened before. Systems put in place nominally to fight child abuse end up being used for copyright enforcement.
- ChrisKnott 4y ago
  Do you have links for those systems? I can't find anything, but "copyright" is not a good Google search term...
TakeBlaster16 4y ago
> What evidence would convince you that they are sincerely trying to protect children? If they sent people into the the real world (where the children are), instead of passively spying on bits and bytes > HNers believe this conspiracy theory about their own governments Not a conspiracy theory, and not specific to HN. I dare say it's a mainstream opinion, which explains why they can't openly admit to it and the document had to be leaked (similar to Edward Snowden in the US). This comic predates HN: https://i.redd.it/ifb8agngc7dy.jpg https://i.redd.it/ifb8agngc7dy.jpg
- stef25 4y ago
  > If they sent people into the the real world (where the children are), instead of passively spying on bits and bytes What would those people do in the real world? Kind of a rhetorical question but if you have a good answer then shoot :)
zx85wes 4y ago
You are disingenuous. 'Gliding path' is standard practice in the EU.
HighlandSpring 4y ago
> HNers believe this conspiracy theory about their own governments (that they are deliberately secretly plotting to be despotic, and using the cover of trying to protect children) with no actual evidence, just a lot of winks and eyebrow wiggling. Complete abdication of rational thinking. Ha, I don't think most HNers would be quick to say think their governments are capable of conspiracy. I think most would say it's just more your regular run of the mill taxpayer-funded incompetency.
peaslock 4y ago
One piece of evidence is that authorities pushing hard for surveillance do not actually care about removing images they find, even though removal requests are easy to file and are obeyed by hosters.[0] More evidence is that this sort of crime is being exaggerated in its severity. E.g. this study found the risk of adulthood psychological trauma is minimal when relying on objective evidence of abuse.[1] It is filthy and bad, but the total damage seems hardly enough to justify abolishing privacy. There is always going to be a tradeoff between safety and freedom. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31353026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31353026 [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0880-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0880-3
BurningFrog 4y ago
A major rule in life is to listen to what people do, not what they say. What they'll do is listen to every online conversation anyone has.
SamPatt 4y ago
Governments don't need to secretly plot to be despotic. They're fairly open about it. Here we are discussing a government demanding that they are able to access all private communications in order to ensure it's all perfectly legal, and yet you don't see this as despotic. So it's not a conspiracy, because so many people don't even see it as despotic they aren't afraid to do it in the open. Losing the ability to have a private conversation online is so blatantly harmful to individual liberties I cannot comprehend how a thinking person isn't alarmed by it.

wyager 4y ago

> Why do you think this? Anyone with a bayesian world-model thinks this. It's one of the most tired and obvious lies of all time, to the point that "think of the children" is a well-known trope. > What evidence would convince you that they are sincerely trying to protect children? Their behavior would have to actually reflect such a stance.

imtringued 4y ago

This technology is ineffective at saving children and highly effective at ruining more lives than it could theoretically save even with perfect conditions.

donkeyd 4y ago
Yes, both true, but in no way contrary to the statement you're replying to. Politicians in general are highly ignorant on technology and have no clue about the impact of ideas like this. They get advice from advisory boards populated by political science students that had internships at IT companies and are now 'advisor on AI in government'. Sometimes they get external advice from expensive consultants that tell them what they want to hear, especially if they think they might be able to sell more projects afterwards. So, a politician who objectively wants to protect children in a modern world will come up with dumb ideas like this and get confirmation that it's not a dumb idea. It's Hanlon's Razor at work.

vaylian 4y ago

> Why do you think this? Because Zensursula has tried to pull off this trick before. Her party is very eager to introduce more surveillance and they like to brush off technical and ethical concerns.

concordDance 4y ago

> Why do you think this? Because it's happened before. Systems put in place nominally to fight child abuse end up being used for copyright enforcement.

ChrisKnott 4y ago
Do you have links for those systems? I can't find anything, but "copyright" is not a good Google search term...

TakeBlaster16 4y ago

> What evidence would convince you that they are sincerely trying to protect children? If they sent people into the the real world (where the children are), instead of passively spying on bits and bytes > HNers believe this conspiracy theory about their own governments Not a conspiracy theory, and not specific to HN. I dare say it's a mainstream opinion, which explains why they can't openly admit to it and the document had to be leaked (similar to Edward Snowden in the US). This comic predates HN: https://i.redd.it/ifb8agngc7dy.jpg https://i.redd.it/ifb8agngc7dy.jpg

stef25 4y ago
> If they sent people into the the real world (where the children are), instead of passively spying on bits and bytes What would those people do in the real world? Kind of a rhetorical question but if you have a good answer then shoot :)

zx85wes 4y ago

You are disingenuous. 'Gliding path' is standard practice in the EU.

HighlandSpring 4y ago

> HNers believe this conspiracy theory about their own governments (that they are deliberately secretly plotting to be despotic, and using the cover of trying to protect children) with no actual evidence, just a lot of winks and eyebrow wiggling. Complete abdication of rational thinking. Ha, I don't think most HNers would be quick to say think their governments are capable of conspiracy. I think most would say it's just more your regular run of the mill taxpayer-funded incompetency.

peaslock 4y ago

One piece of evidence is that authorities pushing hard for surveillance do not actually care about removing images they find, even though removal requests are easy to file and are obeyed by hosters.[0] More evidence is that this sort of crime is being exaggerated in its severity. E.g. this study found the risk of adulthood psychological trauma is minimal when relying on objective evidence of abuse.[1] It is filthy and bad, but the total damage seems hardly enough to justify abolishing privacy. There is always going to be a tradeoff between safety and freedom. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31353026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31353026 [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0880-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0880-3

BurningFrog 4y ago

A major rule in life is to listen to what people do, not what they say. What they'll do is listen to every online conversation anyone has.

SamPatt 4y ago

Governments don't need to secretly plot to be despotic. They're fairly open about it. Here we are discussing a government demanding that they are able to access all private communications in order to ensure it's all perfectly legal, and yet you don't see this as despotic. So it's not a conspiracy, because so many people don't even see it as despotic they aren't afraid to do it in the open. Losing the ability to have a private conversation online is so blatantly harmful to individual liberties I cannot comprehend how a thinking person isn't alarmed by it.