[JohnFen]

> I'm simply trying to point out that CSAM is a real problem. People really care about it. And it's factually wrong to claim otherwise.

Very nearly nobody is arguing otherwise, though.

> Apple/Google/etc still maintains the technical ability to snoop on you regardless of this law.

Absolutely. Not only can they, but they do.

[camhart]

> Very nearly nobody is arguing otherwise, though.

How is equating CSAM to (merely) emotional weight not doing that?

[Al0neStar]

CSAM does carry emotional weight. Your entire argument is that since privacy measures are already loose then its okay to make them looser for "the children".

[camhart]

> CSAM does carry emotional weight.

I never argued it doesn't.

> Your entire argument is that since privacy measures are already loose then its okay to make them looser for "the children".

Where did I make this argument? (hint: I didn't)

[Al0neStar]

Privacy is binary you either have it or you dont and to argue that there exists a "balance" is disingenuous.

[JPws_Prntr_Fngr]

The disingenuousness is the point. You're trying to rationalize with authoritarians, who do not argue in good faith.

[camhart]

That isn't reality. You give up privacy all the time in exchange for things. And even with e2ee you don't "have" privacy guaranteed.