3 ms·

I would argue against demonizing divorce. Living with a couple who hates each other or where one is domestically abusing the other is a horrible state for child

• BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  My point was more that "protecting children", as a goal, is a very complex issue and abuse has it's starting points very early in the abused's life and also likely the abusers life. I think it would be much better, and more of a longer term solution, to spend money on resources to tackle root cause abuse issues than poorly thought out privacy invading legislation that affects literally everyone. My divorce example was to point out the potential for equally silly, poorly thought out legislation because divorce has a negative effect on children. I think more money spent on boots-on-the-ground child protection services and education campaigns for children themselves, to provide them the knowledge and awareness to protect themselves from online predators, would be a longer term, better targeted legislation. But of course the above is only a better option if you're actually wanting to give children a better chance at avoiding abuse. Edited to add: I just had the thought that approaching any problem from a law enforcement angle is treating the symptoms and not the cause. It almost ensures an on-going stream of work because it just doesn't address the fundamental problem. A law enforcement approach doesn't protect children, it punishes offenders. It doesn't make vulnerable children any less vulnerable. A law enforcement approach is harvesting pus instead of attempting to treat the infection.