this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
537 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

59329 readers
6112 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fubo@lemmy.world 176 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

Taking away privacy makes it easier for children to be abused.

Remember, the most likely abusers of children are not strangers off the Internet; they're people who have authority over those children: parents, church leaders, teachers, coaches, police, etc.

Private online communication makes it easier for abused children to get help.

In other words, these laws are not "fighting pedophilia". They are enabling child abuse.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In other words, these laws are not “fighting pedophilia”. They are enabling child abuse.

So no different than all these laws that (supposedly) "stop sex trafficking" which only exist to clamp down on sex work while... drumroll... making absolutely no dent in actual sex trafficking?

Yeah... that tracks.

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just consider: If sex work were legal and not stigmatized, there wouldn't be incels, which would rob the far-right of some of its most vigorous supporters.

[–] DancingIsForbidden@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

I always thought reddit awards were stupid but this post makes we wish lemmy had a way to super upvote.

[–] deafboy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

A companion chooses her own clients, that's guild law. But physical appearance doesn't matter so terribly, you look for a compatibility of spirit.

— Inara Serra

[–] brewbellyblueberry@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

On top of all that, I wonder how much the types of backports they're rooting for would be used to acquire the kind of material pedophiles are after. I mean kids will be kids either way and be stupid and the people that are after kiddie porn seem more likely the type of people to know their way around and stay hidden, because they're literally predators. These backports will be abused by both "the legitimate" side and criminals, so wouldn't having a "special key" to unlock your backdoor put your children in more danger, especially when you're sleeping sound thinking you're safe and therefore not worried about someone, "breaking in". (Is it still breaking in if they have a fucking key?)

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Gakomi@lemmy.world 165 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Not gonna lie the fighting pedophilia seems more of an excuse in order to read our messages!

[–] Jackthelad@lemmy.world 130 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The "fighting terrorism" argument didn't work, so this is their new angle.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago

It worked, they just want even more access with less push back.

[–] TheWinged7@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Or the "fighting drugs" argument either

[–] Assdddffff@lemmynsfw.com 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is nothing new fighting pedophilia and human trafficking are the smokescreen used to enact most laws controlling the internet.

Edit to fill in what I’m implying: these laws (eg FOSTA-SESTA) are either ineffective or counterproductive in their stated goal, while simultaneously having broad add-on effects, generally harming free speech.

FOSTA-SESTA makes sex work less safe for those who are not trafficked. Meanwhile it pushes actual traffickers “underground” and off the internet, making it much harder for law enforcement to find and successfully prosecute them. Bonus: the law has been used to push sex education and general discussion of sex and sexuality off of major websites.

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

These laws enable child abuse, not prevent it, by giving abusive authority figures greater ability to control and monitor their victims' communications.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

"For the children!" legislation has never been for the children, and always has been pushing authoritarian laws that take away peoples power.

and they feel safe doing it, because they have the in built system of shutting down criticism and complaint with "Oh, so you DON'T want to protect the childrens? You DON'T want to stop them being sexually exploited?!"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 90 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pedophiles would be terminally stupid if they used common, commercial chat systems and social media. Those who survive have probably their own forums completely disconnected from commercial prying eyes.

So in the end they would only catch a handful of very stupid amateurs while trampling on the rights to privacy and confidentiality of all citizens.

[–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, the stupid ones get caught pretty easily. A professor at our local university was caught storing CP on a university network share.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

How the fuck did they even become a professor? I mean even school student in 8th grade would not be so stupid to put regular porn on their school or home network share.

[–] synceDD@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By being good at studying? I hope this was sarcastic bro 😬

load more comments (1 replies)

You're highly overestimating the intelligence requirements to become a professor.

Also, being well informed on a specific topic doesn't mean you're smart. My HS valedictorian is the dumbest person I've ever met. But, she was able to regurgitate information on tests without actually understanding any of it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 77 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It was never about fighting pedophilia lol, it's about power.

[–] Lenny@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And control, can’t forget that.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 71 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For fighting pedos (or abusers in general) it would be way more helpful to fight it at the root, not the leafs.

But it's just a marketing-phrase to kill privacy, not fight abuse....

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

So eliminate children?

Very Huxlarian.

[–] DarkenLM@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What did you think was meant by 'think of the children'?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] eya@lemmy.dbzer0.com 60 points 1 year ago

classic "protecting the children" to do something terrible excuse

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Does anybody but me remember top sites? Back in the day bootleggers would distribute and share ripped movies and albums on top sites for bootleggers to download and copy to disc or tape. Like. They didn't use regular chats except to vet new people. They literally had their own chat networks. The same applies here. Like. Why do they think this will do anything much to make a dent in CP? We all know it won't and it's a poorly concealed attempt at destroying privacy laws.

[–] DigitalFrank@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You want to fight pedophilia, cut of the trafficking network at the head.

Release the Epstein client list.

They won't, this is how you know it's not about pedophilia, it's about further invasion of privacy and more monitoring of the peasants.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] catalog3115@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

To put pressure on the countries and persuade them to vote 'yes', the European Commission placed these ads only in countries that did not want to vote for the law: Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Slovenia, Portugal, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands Ads Ads Pic

[–] Jackthelad@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Someone break out that Edward Snowden quote about having "nothing to hide".

Because those people are the reason these dumb things are proposed.

[–] Steve@communick.news 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
- Edward Snowden

[–] GeekyNerdyNerd@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I like Snowden as much as any terminally online person does, but I don't think his quote is really the best as it supposes there are people with nothing to hide. Everyone has something to hide, if for no other reason than out of embarrassment.

There's a reason why we close the bathroom door despite the fact that everyone knows we are taking a shit.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JewGoblin@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

lol the same politicians let grooming gangs get away with exploiting young girls, they could care less about Pedos and care more about the power they yield, in other words they're full of shit

[–] magnetosphere@kbin.social 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So, a better title might be “Fighting privacy under the guise of fighting pedophelia: The EU rule that could break the internet”

[–] clearedtoland@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The unfortunate brilliance of it is that there are master strategists and tacticians that understand how to pass thinly-veiled invasive legislation under some undeniably noble premise.

NYC started with speed cameras and red light cameras only near schools to “protect children.” Who wouldn’t support that? Every single government employee knew this was a long term play: capture metrics showing how much these roadways have improved - then use that to support expansion of the system elsewhere. The same with NYPD cameras and surveillance stations.

Start with something small and digestible to the public, then use it to substantiate the unpalatable.

[–] PlexSheep@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Red light and speed cams everywhere just makes sense for traffic.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mojo@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

It's always "think of the children!" as the go to fascist propaganda

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The vast majority of politicians apparently refuse to understand - despite it being explained ad nauseum in a multitude of ways - that truly robust encryption with no “master key” or “back door” that the “good guys” can use is completely integral to and absolutely required for the modern internet to work at all.

[–] Petter1@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What are they gonna do about my Matrix server 🤔

[–] smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Matrix server could become illegal in such laws.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] deczzz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And it will probably happen. No one in power gives a fuck about logic and reason. It's all about sending a signal. People don't care about privacy but they don't like pedos!

11 years ago, I attended a talk by Gottfrid Svartholm in Berlin. He told us that we have lost the internet. Pretty good foresight eh?

[–] Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 9 points 1 year ago

In case someone wants to mail the EU: https://stopchatcontrol.eu/

[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago

Fuck you Ashton.

[–] Buffaloaf@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But I thought Kim Kardashian already broke the internet

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›