| > That is not the argument being made. It is an argument that having friction in the process to do something that may have dangerous outcomes is sometimes positive. The argument being made, as far as I can tell, is that this tool will make doing bad things easier, and thus this tool should not be made. As any tool to resist censorship will also enable said bad things, I do not find this to be a valid concern. (And since some governments would list censorship resistance itself as one of those bad things, this is always going to be true) > It is much the same as arguments that there should be gun training required to purchase a firearm. I think the tech equivalent to this would be mandating a "don't sexually exploit children" class before allowing purchase of a computer. (As you might guess, I'm not a fan) > Adding friction to a process sometimes provides positive benefits. Sure, but you have to make sure the collateral damage is minimized AND that you're actually catching the offending segment of the population. Mandating gun training before purchase is actually a great comparison here - the vast majority of gun crime in the US is committed with illegally acquired weapons (which would be unaffected by the mandate), just like I imagine that the majority of CSE imagery shared on the internet uses something more robust than OnionShare. So in both cases you'd have high collateral damage with minimal impact to the population you actually care about affecting... |
The majority is shared on normal social media and Bittorrent, although the worst is shared on dark web sites of the same robustness as OnionShare.