3 ms·

The parent is not saying they’re against protecting kids; the parent is saying even if these measures do protect kids (which is disputable) they’re against them

The parent is not saying they’re against protecting kids; the parent is saying even if these measures do protect kids (which is disputable) they’re against them because of the side effects. For example, it’s a wedge to let governments and corporations de-anonymize the internet and snoop on everyone. Not hard to imagine that kids in North Korea are exposed to less web porn. Doesn’t mean we want to live in NK.

Tadpole9181 1y ago
TFA is talking about how to do it without the side effects. In light of that context, saying that you do not care if it is proven that it is a good thing to do and you can do it safely, is objectively the wrong take. You'd be hurting people for no reason?
- electricboots 1y ago
  Just because you say it protects the children, doesn’t convince me it does. I think side effects is doing some heavy lifting, far beyond the scope assured anonymity, which seems questionable on its own, for this to be a reasonable hypothesis
  - Tadpole9181 1y ago
    Please read comments you reply to. They brought up the hypothetical that if it empirically proven that it is true. And I explicitly said I don't think that's the case.
- jack1243star 1y ago
  You seem to swing about the concept of "objectively wrong" a lot, which I cannot understand. How can an opinion be objectively wrong?
  - Tadpole9181 1y ago
    To just go for the extreme: murdering someone for no reason is objectively wrong. The hypothetical that was brought up stops this from being an opinion and moves it into plain fact territory. If you can prevent harm with no downside, doing nothing is not an opinion, it's pretty clearly just immoral.
- jaredklewis 1y ago
  I think zero knowledge proofs still have some side effects. For sure, it's a massive improvement on the measures being proposed and implemented now. Even TFA recognizes that a good zero knowledge proof system doesn't eliminate all risk; it just reduces and shifts it.

Tadpole9181 1y ago

TFA is talking about how to do it without the side effects. In light of that context, saying that you do not care if it is proven that it is a good thing to do and you can do it safely, is objectively the wrong take. You'd be hurting people for no reason?

electricboots 1y ago
Just because you say it protects the children, doesn’t convince me it does. I think side effects is doing some heavy lifting, far beyond the scope assured anonymity, which seems questionable on its own, for this to be a reasonable hypothesis
- Tadpole9181 1y ago
  Please read comments you reply to. They brought up the hypothetical that if it empirically proven that it is true. And I explicitly said I don't think that's the case.
jack1243star 1y ago
You seem to swing about the concept of "objectively wrong" a lot, which I cannot understand. How can an opinion be objectively wrong?
- Tadpole9181 1y ago
  To just go for the extreme: murdering someone for no reason is objectively wrong. The hypothetical that was brought up stops this from being an opinion and moves it into plain fact territory. If you can prevent harm with no downside, doing nothing is not an opinion, it's pretty clearly just immoral.
jaredklewis 1y ago
I think zero knowledge proofs still have some side effects. For sure, it's a massive improvement on the measures being proposed and implemented now. Even TFA recognizes that a good zero knowledge proof system doesn't eliminate all risk; it just reduces and shifts it.