4 ms·

okay, ill bite: yes, the blogger has tunnel vision, that's the only valid point in your post, he also missed the fact that anyone can poison the well, not just

okay, ill bite: yes, the blogger has tunnel vision, that's the only valid point in your post, he also missed the fact that anyone can poison the well, not just privileged entities. however your rhetoric is cancerous, although i'm aware that many people who use it are just sheep and have no idea what they're insinuating. CSAM is a propaganda word: 1. right wing uses it to push their agenda of punishing people for having sex 2. left wing uses it to push their agenda of punishing males or kulaks or whatever 3. police use it to make it look like they're solving a crime so they can get paid for nothing: they can arrest someone for looking at a nude picture of a 17 year old (which the suspect is often unaware of), then in the media and police statements: "he was arrested for the possession of child sexual abuse material". and this is the majority of convictions: people (and even teens) being into teens. people are not naturally sexually attracted to children (13 and under) in more than say 0.0001%. so now that we actually looked at the subject beyond the taboo veil, it seems the discussion is just to stop 14-17 year olds from having sex, which is insane and does not justify one single thing that police do about it. CP being illegal is just completely out of the question. we should be debating re legalizing CP, or changing it to 13 and under at the very least (i don't see any harm in the existence of porn of any age since it does not encourage abuse since most people will not become sexually attracted to children no matter how much you expose them to it). so again, your rhetoric is pure cancer. i don't need a "privacy respecting solution to CSAM". what the hell do you think that would be? do we also need a freedom respecting solution to the murder problem? would you have my legs cut off and say i should just order door dash?

anigbrowl 3y ago
people are not naturally sexually attracted to children (13 and under) in more than say 0.0001%. In the US alone, that would be ~30,000 people. Get back to me when you've read some legal cases or know anyone who's been abused to produce such material. Perhaps you'll learn some critical thinking and better manners along the way.
- chownie 3y ago
  > Get back to me when you've read some legal cases or know anyone who's been abused to produce such material Hello, I'd be the anyone in this scenario. I don't believe that the pros outweigh the cons, violating the privacy of every single person to protect us from the absolute minority (abusers) of a minority (those attracted to children) is not worth the exchange. CSAM detection would not have protected me from abuse. At best it would have prevented continued sexual abuse. And yet had my abuser been caught early I would have been returned to a different, brutally abusive man. One whose abuse no one particularly seems to care about, because there's less to get righteous about when there's no sex involved in the abuse.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    OK, but if you read my posts above I am not arguing for mass privacy violations. I'm saying the tech community isn't going to get any traction for its advocacy unless it makes some effect to propose privacy respecting solutions to the CSAM proliferation problem. I'm sorry that happened to you, but I presume you would also prefer that imagery including you did not continue to circulate?
    - uconnectlol 3y ago
      what? we already know the legislation will not pass. the "tech community" doesn't have to do anything. why are you trying to make it sound like there is a dilemma here. cringe
    - chownie 3y ago
      How about putting more of the onus on services who might be used to traffic it? > I'm sorry that happened to you, but I presume you would also prefer that imagery including you did not continue to circulate? I've reported CSAM posts on tumblr and twitter and seen them survive for weeks before they finally disappear. It seems like that's a much riper target than propping up this kind of worst case solution.
throw0131023 3y ago
[flagged]
feoren 3y ago
Your claims of things that do happen are likely true. It is a propaganda word. People do use it as a bludgeon to push their agenda through. Police do use it for bullshit arrests. Teenagers' lives are ruined for basically no reason. Your claims of things that don't happen are, unfortunately, false. Law enforcement agents whose jobs involve ever looking at CSAM basically cannot stand the mental toll of the job for any significant amount of time. Unthinkably horrible things happen to children to create these images. The idea that we would legalize it is not on the table, and suggesting such a thing is a great way to immediately lose support from everyone in the world. We should not reject efforts to prevent the production and spread of CSAM unless we can show that the former group can abuse it. Unfortunately, so far, basically all suggested prevention mechanisms are vulnerable to abuse and corruption. It's an extremely difficult problem. > i don't need a "privacy respecting solution to CSAM". what the hell do you think that would be? do we also need a freedom respecting solution to the murder problem? would you have my legs cut off and say i should just order door dash? I don't think that analogy is hitting the way you're intending. Yes, we'd all love a "freedom-respecting solution to the murder problem". In fact convicted murderers still have some rights and freedoms, and balancing those against preventing murder and rehabilitating murderers is another difficult problem. Cutting off legs hasn't been seen as a reasonable punishment for a crime since the Bronze Age, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.
- uconnectlol 3y ago
  > Your claims of things that don't happen are, unfortunately, false. Law enforcement agents whose jobs involve ever looking at CSAM basically cannot stand the mental toll of the job for any significant amount of time. Unthinkably horrible things happen to children to create these images. literally just propaganda and i have no doubt that this is a massive exaggeration. >The idea that we would legalize it is not on the table, and suggesting such a thing is a great way to immediately lose support from everyone in the world. cool, and i was going to open my first post with "CP being contraband is out of the question and never should have became a thing". > I don't think that analogy is hitting the way you're intending. Yes, we'd all love a "freedom-respecting solution to the murder problem". In fact convicted murderers still have some rights and freedoms, and balancing those against preventing murder and rehabilitating murderers is another difficult problem. Cutting off legs hasn't been seen as a reasonable punishment for a crime since the Bronze Age, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. i don't know what i didn't make clear. i said that i don't want a law to cut off everyone's legs at birth with a casus beli like "terrible people are going around murdering people with their bare hands now that we all live in a cage and if you don't want to get rid of legs you are part of the problem". the analogy is in fact absolutely perfect even better than i intended, since you know whoever argued this is hugely exaggerating. and then we have the other guy i'm replying to who can't even write a coherent response (for instance calculating 30K instead of 300, and then ignoring the fact that most of those people will not actually do anything) because he's too angry from his inner sheep being offended because someone dared question is terrible law which is basically just racket where they can use fabricated and overblown cases instead of having to perpetrate the crimes themselves (although the FBI is also known for serving CP themselves, which contradicts a huge amount of the "CP should be illegal" arguments, such as "seeing it makes more pedos")

anigbrowl 3y ago

people are not naturally sexually attracted to children (13 and under) in more than say 0.0001%. In the US alone, that would be ~30,000 people. Get back to me when you've read some legal cases or know anyone who's been abused to produce such material. Perhaps you'll learn some critical thinking and better manners along the way.

chownie 3y ago
> Get back to me when you've read some legal cases or know anyone who's been abused to produce such material Hello, I'd be the anyone in this scenario. I don't believe that the pros outweigh the cons, violating the privacy of every single person to protect us from the absolute minority (abusers) of a minority (those attracted to children) is not worth the exchange. CSAM detection would not have protected me from abuse. At best it would have prevented continued sexual abuse. And yet had my abuser been caught early I would have been returned to a different, brutally abusive man. One whose abuse no one particularly seems to care about, because there's less to get righteous about when there's no sex involved in the abuse.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  OK, but if you read my posts above I am not arguing for mass privacy violations. I'm saying the tech community isn't going to get any traction for its advocacy unless it makes some effect to propose privacy respecting solutions to the CSAM proliferation problem. I'm sorry that happened to you, but I presume you would also prefer that imagery including you did not continue to circulate?
  - uconnectlol 3y ago
    what? we already know the legislation will not pass. the "tech community" doesn't have to do anything. why are you trying to make it sound like there is a dilemma here. cringe
  - chownie 3y ago
    How about putting more of the onus on services who might be used to traffic it? > I'm sorry that happened to you, but I presume you would also prefer that imagery including you did not continue to circulate? I've reported CSAM posts on tumblr and twitter and seen them survive for weeks before they finally disappear. It seems like that's a much riper target than propping up this kind of worst case solution.

throw0131023 3y ago

[flagged]

feoren 3y ago

Your claims of things that do happen are likely true. It is a propaganda word. People do use it as a bludgeon to push their agenda through. Police do use it for bullshit arrests. Teenagers' lives are ruined for basically no reason. Your claims of things that don't happen are, unfortunately, false. Law enforcement agents whose jobs involve ever looking at CSAM basically cannot stand the mental toll of the job for any significant amount of time. Unthinkably horrible things happen to children to create these images. The idea that we would legalize it is not on the table, and suggesting such a thing is a great way to immediately lose support from everyone in the world. We should not reject efforts to prevent the production and spread of CSAM unless we can show that the former group can abuse it. Unfortunately, so far, basically all suggested prevention mechanisms are vulnerable to abuse and corruption. It's an extremely difficult problem. > i don't need a "privacy respecting solution to CSAM". what the hell do you think that would be? do we also need a freedom respecting solution to the murder problem? would you have my legs cut off and say i should just order door dash? I don't think that analogy is hitting the way you're intending. Yes, we'd all love a "freedom-respecting solution to the murder problem". In fact convicted murderers still have some rights and freedoms, and balancing those against preventing murder and rehabilitating murderers is another difficult problem. Cutting off legs hasn't been seen as a reasonable punishment for a crime since the Bronze Age, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

uconnectlol 3y ago
> Your claims of things that don't happen are, unfortunately, false. Law enforcement agents whose jobs involve ever looking at CSAM basically cannot stand the mental toll of the job for any significant amount of time. Unthinkably horrible things happen to children to create these images. literally just propaganda and i have no doubt that this is a massive exaggeration. >The idea that we would legalize it is not on the table, and suggesting such a thing is a great way to immediately lose support from everyone in the world. cool, and i was going to open my first post with "CP being contraband is out of the question and never should have became a thing". > I don't think that analogy is hitting the way you're intending. Yes, we'd all love a "freedom-respecting solution to the murder problem". In fact convicted murderers still have some rights and freedoms, and balancing those against preventing murder and rehabilitating murderers is another difficult problem. Cutting off legs hasn't been seen as a reasonable punishment for a crime since the Bronze Age, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. i don't know what i didn't make clear. i said that i don't want a law to cut off everyone's legs at birth with a casus beli like "terrible people are going around murdering people with their bare hands now that we all live in a cage and if you don't want to get rid of legs you are part of the problem". the analogy is in fact absolutely perfect even better than i intended, since you know whoever argued this is hugely exaggerating. and then we have the other guy i'm replying to who can't even write a coherent response (for instance calculating 30K instead of 300, and then ignoring the fact that most of those people will not actually do anything) because he's too angry from his inner sheep being offended because someone dared question is terrible law which is basically just racket where they can use fabricated and overblown cases instead of having to perpetrate the crimes themselves (although the FBI is also known for serving CP themselves, which contradicts a huge amount of the "CP should be illegal" arguments, such as "seeing it makes more pedos")