5 ms·

Yes, this is good. I urge anyone who thinks otherwise to wade into this arena themselves and see what they find. It is incredibly easy to be on the sidelines a

Yes, this is good. I urge anyone who thinks otherwise to wade into this arena themselves and see what they find. It is incredibly easy to be on the sidelines and hold an opinion. It is your right to do so. However if even a tiny bit of you is the kind of person who is driven to understand, and to hold opinions based on defensible positions, do your legwork. Personally, I keep an arms length from the child safety side of things, simply because I know my tolerances.

throwaway938761 1y ago
The innocent people caught in the net aren't the only victims though. Entire families will be broken by the 50% false positive rate. You can easily end up doing more harm than the abusers with your line of thinking. Granted, assuming law enforcement is reasonably competent, the false positives shouldn't result in anything other some wasted time for whoever has to look into it...but that's quite the assumption to make.
- intended 1y ago
  Everyone has the freedom to hold their opinions. I am saying that if you are type of person who wants to be accurate, you should look deeper into this space. There’s many opinions that are easier to hold when not having to test them. I had to change my positions.
pona-a 1y ago
Why does the emotional intensity of the crime justify accepting massive collateral damage to innocent people? It's an appeal to trauma. Why can't we turn the tables on this? Have you been woken up at 3 AM by police battering down your door? Had your home torn apart, computers seized, children screaming? Waited months for an apology that never comes while your name sits in search results next to 'investigation'? I urge anyone who thinks aggressive enforcement is worth the cost to wade into this arena themselves and see what they find. Personally, I keep an arm's length from these stories, simply because I know my tolerances. But if even a tiny bit of you is driven to understand and hold opinions based on defensible positions, do your legwork.
- intended 1y ago
  The emotional intensity of the crime of child abuse? So we are removing the emotional valence of crimes, and then comparing it to the emotional state of being in fear of police over reach? I mean, if you need that level of handicap to make your position become defensible, then you don’t really have an apples to apples comparison. As for leg work, would you feel better to know that I have been on the other end of doxxing attempts, and that team mates I know have had it worse?
  - pona-a 1y ago
    This was merely a rhetorical exercise, holding a mirror to the initial argument. If you found it disingenuous, I hope you can see the thesis: "Wade into this arena and see for yourself" works equally well to justify opposite positions depending on which victims we center. This is a foundational legal principle going back to Beccaria and Voltaire. You've experienced being falsely targeted and the harm it causes. How is an algorithm sending a false report to police different from a dox? Does your personal safety get overruled by theoretical public safety? Do you expect algorithmic accusations to be questioned more carefully than human ones, or institutional action to be gentler than the vigilantism you experienced?
    - intended 1y ago
      Calling it a rhetorical exercise is… well sure. Disingenuousness is a high bar for the argument you formulated - which is why it went no further. Disingenuousness is a matter of being insincere. You ask others to eject the emotional cost of CSAM from their calculations, while emphasizing the most extreme version of police search in yours. Something I never did. Further, you assumed that I had no standing to ask people to go deeper into the field. Yet, once I make the mistake of saying that I know what that feels like - yet am making the request I am (to look into this field) you double down. The issue is not that I need to understand you - you are free to your opinion. I AM saying, that more people need to look into the corners of online safety that we are happy to argue about. ESPECIALLY techies. I am saying that a 50% accuracy rate is pretty damn good, because I expected it to be even worse. I don’t know how to put it man - better people than me need to pay attention to where the gears of technology and speech engage with the fleshy parts of our information machinery. Hell - something like sharing threat intel across major tech firms, is a challenge even today. In tactical terms - the ideological position against government over reach is being flanked and the tolerances overwhelmed by unending tides of incidents and extreme situations. If the position is to be defended, then it needs active measures, which mean people other than me have to get the details of what is going on and frame it for others to act on.

throwaway938761 1y ago

The innocent people caught in the net aren't the only victims though. Entire families will be broken by the 50% false positive rate. You can easily end up doing more harm than the abusers with your line of thinking. Granted, assuming law enforcement is reasonably competent, the false positives shouldn't result in anything other some wasted time for whoever has to look into it...but that's quite the assumption to make.

intended 1y ago
Everyone has the freedom to hold their opinions. I am saying that if you are type of person who wants to be accurate, you should look deeper into this space. There’s many opinions that are easier to hold when not having to test them. I had to change my positions.

pona-a 1y ago

Why does the emotional intensity of the crime justify accepting massive collateral damage to innocent people? It's an appeal to trauma. Why can't we turn the tables on this? Have you been woken up at 3 AM by police battering down your door? Had your home torn apart, computers seized, children screaming? Waited months for an apology that never comes while your name sits in search results next to 'investigation'? I urge anyone who thinks aggressive enforcement is worth the cost to wade into this arena themselves and see what they find. Personally, I keep an arm's length from these stories, simply because I know my tolerances. But if even a tiny bit of you is driven to understand and hold opinions based on defensible positions, do your legwork.

intended 1y ago
The emotional intensity of the crime of child abuse? So we are removing the emotional valence of crimes, and then comparing it to the emotional state of being in fear of police over reach? I mean, if you need that level of handicap to make your position become defensible, then you don’t really have an apples to apples comparison. As for leg work, would you feel better to know that I have been on the other end of doxxing attempts, and that team mates I know have had it worse?
- pona-a 1y ago
  This was merely a rhetorical exercise, holding a mirror to the initial argument. If you found it disingenuous, I hope you can see the thesis: "Wade into this arena and see for yourself" works equally well to justify opposite positions depending on which victims we center. This is a foundational legal principle going back to Beccaria and Voltaire. You've experienced being falsely targeted and the harm it causes. How is an algorithm sending a false report to police different from a dox? Does your personal safety get overruled by theoretical public safety? Do you expect algorithmic accusations to be questioned more carefully than human ones, or institutional action to be gentler than the vigilantism you experienced?
  - intended 1y ago
    Calling it a rhetorical exercise is… well sure. Disingenuousness is a high bar for the argument you formulated - which is why it went no further. Disingenuousness is a matter of being insincere. You ask others to eject the emotional cost of CSAM from their calculations, while emphasizing the most extreme version of police search in yours. Something I never did. Further, you assumed that I had no standing to ask people to go deeper into the field. Yet, once I make the mistake of saying that I know what that feels like - yet am making the request I am (to look into this field) you double down. The issue is not that I need to understand you - you are free to your opinion. I AM saying, that more people need to look into the corners of online safety that we are happy to argue about. ESPECIALLY techies. I am saying that a 50% accuracy rate is pretty damn good, because I expected it to be even worse. I don’t know how to put it man - better people than me need to pay attention to where the gears of technology and speech engage with the fleshy parts of our information machinery. Hell - something like sharing threat intel across major tech firms, is a challenge even today. In tactical terms - the ideological position against government over reach is being flanked and the tolerances overwhelmed by unending tides of incidents and extreme situations. If the position is to be defended, then it needs active measures, which mean people other than me have to get the details of what is going on and frame it for others to act on.