[ogurechny]

> Child pornography and other types of sexual abuse of children are unquestionably heinous crimes; those who participate in them should be caught and severely punished.

Have you seen an article that, say, criticizes prison system and needs to start with a reminder than killing people is wrong? Definitely a strange sight. This looks like Soviet era prefaces about the decisions of latest CPSU congress and some relevant opinions of comrade Brezhnev that were expected to be found in any decently sized publication, whether it was a material science textbook, or a paper on Babylonians. It doesn't matter what you think, just do the required dance.

This might seem as nitpicking, but that preemptive display of obedience is the very thing that allows the likes of Apple and its customers to use the pretext successfully.

[bruce343434]

CSAM is just a very touchy subject (pun not intended) because people really loose their shit easily if you mismanage your words. It's kind of weird actually, no other crime can set people off so badly. And in the age of online witch hunting, well... I get why the author does it.

[roenxi]

It is usually lazy to point at evolution in social situations, but I think "look after the babies" is probably an instinct that has been baked in to humans at a very deep level. It explains why the response is often positive but surprisingly strong and unreasonable (it is almost humourous the list of atrocities that are easier to defend than CSAM, and grim how the instinctual protections offered to children fade away when people become adults).

Children aren't very tough. If they don't have nearby humans intervening to protect them they tend to die or do badly. Evolution favours people who have strong instincts to protect and promote children. It is plausible.

[TeMPOraL]

Whether or not the instinct manifests to some degree in everyone, it truly goes into overdrive once you become a parent. It's hard to describe in all its scope. Even a concept of a child being hurt by someone starts to become extremely disturbing.

For example, I've noticed that ever since I became a father, I can't enjoy some of the movies and shows I've liked previously, because the scenes where children are threatened or implied to be hurt become emotionally overwhelming to watch. To use a light example, take Star Trek TNG: Power Play (5x15). It was one of the episodes I always found boring, but when I got to it during the last semi-regular TNG rewatch, I had to pause it and collect myself. Almost switched it off. All because of one scene, where a mother and a child end up in the middle of a hostage situation.

[ogurechny]

One can invent a biological explanation for anything, that's the problem. The “instincts” in that reasoning is a stereotype anyway.

Another problem is that “childhood” is pretty recent invention (there's enough popular and scholar literature on that). What you mean as a “child” is not what someone meant mere couple of hundreds years ago. And kids actually died all the time through the whole human history, whether “protected” or not.

[roenxi]

> And kids actually died all the time through the whole human history, whether “protected” or not.

I think that would almost be a point in favour of the idea. The response to CSAM is, frankly, irrationally strong in the modern era. As with many human emotions it looks to me like something calibrated for a different time and altered circumstances.

It is a lazy theory though.

[ajsnigrutin]

And not just that... you can commit many many crimes, or even get falsely accused, win at court, and noone cares.

Just one headline "bruce343434 was found with CP on their phone!" is there for life... child-stuff and rape are one of those two things, that never seem to vanish, and just a mere accusation destroys lives, even if later proved to be untrue.

[ogurechny]

That's what I'm talking about. The questions arise immediately: Why is it a very touchy subject? Who made it such, and how? Is it the same for people outside of globalized US-sensibility-centered bubble? Is it a cultural thing?

There is a widespread belief that proper technical solutions are enough: give us end-to-end encryption and such, and everything will be all right. But people do things for a reason, and technical solutions are introduced accordingly. We need to look there to understand what's happening.

For an outside observer, the messaging media filter example does not even look convincing. So there's a Bad Guy chatting with a kid who can organize their meeting or take the conversation to a different, non-filtered service. And that's completely okay! (Unless, of course, there happens to be a need to promote Big Brother processing all conversations to protect the kids, heh.) However, when we mention sexual content being sent or received, there's a sudden wild flight of fantasy and countless dangers on the horizon. It makes one wonder whether the real goal was to protect no the kids but the parents, from the worried thoughts that their kid is not completely isolated from sexual sphere. The outcome is that today Beavis can't tell Butthead “Wow, look at those tits!” and send the picture without being reported. What a perfect repressive Victorian childhood, and what an outstanding member of society it will produce!

The taboo is twofold. One the one hand, it creates new positions of power for the people who enforce it legally and in the discourse who won't just dismantle themselves (quite the contrary, see the worldwide practice of drug prohibition and its effects on laws and bureaucratic growth). On the other hand, it creates the inflammatory excitement about the topic in the common person. Media knows well which stories — told from the correct angle, obviously — attract public. As a result, there is a stereotypical image of a maniac hiding in the shadows, and the need to “do something about it”. In fact, maniacs (also a stereotype formed by media, by the way) are rare: in 8-9 out of ten cases of child sexual abuse it's a person close to them who decides to “search for happiness” together in such a way.

If the father makes his daughter send him sexual photos, and he is also the one who gets notified about it, what is the point? Observe the observers, too? That's a bureaucratic dead end. Or is such system, the one to silently look into too numerous parental approvals, already in place? Then what about the father who gets notified about his daughter sending her boyfriend sexual photos while being completely okay with it? Well, maybe such father would disable the feature to stop feeling like a third wheel, but what would be the opinion of Big Brother? Effectively, the point of view of “the whole society” that you could previously silently ignore is transparently codified and enacted by the computer.

[mindslight]

> If the father makes his daughter send him sexual photos, and he is also the one who gets notified about it, what is the point?

> Then what about the father who gets notified about his daughter sending her boyfriend sexual photos while being completely okay with it?

Continuing on with your scenarios, what about an abusive father who gets notified his daughter is sending her boyfriend sexual photos or texts, gets jealous at the "competition", and then uses these anti-predation systems to further isolate his daughter? The phone that would have been a lifeline to the outside world then becomes another tool of control.

[franga2000]

> Have you seen an article that, say, criticizes prison system and needs to start with a reminder than killing people is wrong?

I'm pretty sure I have, actually. In the age of Twitter mobs that can have you fired over a misplaced comma, nothing should be left to chance. And protecting yourself from a misunderstanding or ambiguity isn't enough anymore, as a lot of the time these people are malicious. They will not only twist your words, but make things up entirely in order to make you look bad. And when (if) you get your 30 seconds to defend yourself, you'll want to have something short and unambiguous right at the top of the page to point at.

[raxxorrax]

A problem is everyone giving in to outrage. There are some negative side effects for everyone, but just ignoring it is the most viable PR reaction. The people don't want to forgive anyway, they want emotional acknowledgement that nobody can supply on the net.

We have books being scanned that were written 15 years ago that now have to be rewritten. Publishers should never acknowledge these criticisms, this is a form of the worst censorship literature has to content with.

Of course ignoring everything isn't a solution as well, outrage can indeed be justified. But I think outrage has to surpass a level that summons more actions than a twitter post or change.org petition. If outrage still persists, maybe there is a problem you need to address.

Companies that comply too willingly would also do it for any regime. It is nothing that should be praised at all, especially not seen as "progressive" or "tolerant". It should be an example about how the free enterprise indeed fails to act responsible and champion any values. That would be a healthy perspective.

[franga2000]

I agree, but allow me to make a somewhat controversial analogy: this is the same as vaccination and herd immunity and seems to be something that people are instinctively opposed to.

Just like vaccination in a pandemic, ignoring the Twitter outrage is the safest thing when everybody does it (herd immunity). But currently, very few are doing it and since it is dangerous to the individual (re. vaccine analogy: while they ARE safe, many people BELIEVE them to be dangerous, so the result is the same), nobody wants the be the first. And since you can't know if others will follow your example, it's easy to feel like a guinea pig, so you give in and do the long-term worse thing instead.

But unlike with vaccination, the individual risk is very real and more importantly, you can't use moral arguments to convince the individual to take on personal risk to benefit the group like you can with vaccination (and even that rarely works). Companies, unlike people, are not expected to be moral actors (and I'd argue most have to be by definition immoral). So why would a company, journalist or anyone else that finds themselves the target of an outraged mob (or sees a real risk of that happening) not take all the necessary precautions to protect themselves?

[ogurechny]

Let me join you in your sorrow over thousands of years of easy living humans enjoyed before Twitter.

[xdennis]

I think it's because it's very easy to just say: "wait, you're against Apple fighting CP? Are you a pedophile?". People DO think like that.

[h_anna_h]

I really wish they would avoid stating this belief of theirs as a fact. I do not enjoy being told what I should think. Just get straight to the topic instead.