• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -63 months ago

    The catch-22 is that it’s impossible to make this tool freely available as-is without also enabling the child abuse. You can’t pry the apart, or at the very least nobody has managed to yet.

    So do we accept the abuse and let it proliferate, in the name of privacy? Or do we sacrifice privacy to make sure theres not a safe place for abusers?

    There is no answer where no one gets hurt. It sucks when the interests of good align with the interests of bad, and it’s a shit show one way or the other.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      143 months ago

      The Catholic Church abuses kids, so… ban that. Ban adults alone in a room with a child—something could happen. Oh, sometimes they get abuse at school… so, that’s gotta go. Oh no, they get abused on the internet… bye bye internet.

      You can’t say “this could be used to abuse a child” because you could abuse a child with a spoon, but I’ll be damned if I’ll eat soup with a fork.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -83 months ago

        The Catholic Church should absolutely face dire consequences for the abuse they perpetuate and defend. Loss of tax status, prison for all abusers and those who assisted them in avoiding jail. You are making a great parallel.

        It’s not that it “could be” used to abuse a child, wtf. It’s that is has already been widely adopted. It’s currently happening. Same as the Catholic Church.

        You’re really trying hard to make this about “possible” crimes while ignoring the material ones.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          113 months ago

          No I’m not. Stopping private conversations will only hurt people. Kids will continue to be abused regardless. They were before Telegram, they will be after. Any “protect the children” by removing rights is never about the children.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      123 months ago

      The catch-22 is that it’s impossible to make this tool freely available as-is without also enabling the child abuse.

      The catch-22 is that it’s impossible to make roads freely available as-is without also enabling road rage.

      The lack of implanted radio telemetry devices in our dicks “enables” rape.

      Basically, fuck off with that idiotic horseshit.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -33 months ago

        But roads are heavily regulated and monitored. In fact, they’re directly managed by the government. If I experience road rage I can call the police with the license plate number and there’s databases of drivers with pictures and VINs etc. This is not the point you think you were making.

        the lack of implanted radio telemetry …

        Absolutely wild that you’re accusing others of idiotic horseshit

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      43 months ago

      I’d argue that, while privacy comes at a cost to society, it’s an essential building block of democracy.

      Unfortunately, we cannot uncover messages of child abusers without also helping uncover messages of opposition leaders, for example.

      Also, as our lives move more and more digital, basic expectation of personal privacy online becomes part of comfortable digital living. We all have things we don’t want a random dude in the uniform to see, even if there’s nothing criminal in there at all.

      That said, total digital surveillance is probably gonna cost us more than digital privacy, but government has a lot to gain from it, which is, to my mind, why we have this unpopular thing pushed so hard in the first place. Public is generally very vocal about NOT wanting this.