That logic seems to go both ways, though. Actual child abuse is, surely, even more "life-destroying", right? So wouldn't it make more sense to tolerate any nu

That logic seems to go both ways, though. Actual child abuse is, surely, even more "life-destroying", right? So wouldn't it make more sense to tolerate any number of false positives if we can save just one kid? I'm always amazed at the number of people who come to a complicated nuanced issue like this, accuse one side of having implemented an absolutist and inflexible dystopian monster, and then promptly demand an equally absolutist solution. The libertarian answer might well be that we need to tolerate CSAM in the interests of free speech, but that's not the sense of the society we live in, nor of the laws it has passed. All paths must be middle paths.