artaxadepressedhorse

At what point can we all just acknowledge that copyright law has become a public nuisance in its current form

Somebody who clicks "accept transfer" on the screen without knowing why it popped up deserves whatever comes next. Only exception being young kids who shouldn't have access to a fully functional device anyway. If there's some sort of "Toddler mode" on iPhone, then yeah def have airdrop disabled when in that mode. This is a parenting issue. We should be far more concerned about child advertising and parents putting their entire kid's life story on Facebook.

Also, why are police fear mongering on social media in any official capacity. Seems pretty damn unprofessional.

How do you keep your sanity? Do you just have to compartmentalize everything as extremely abstract and comical when your task is detangling someone's 25,000 line spaghetti God classes and obscure async timing bugs?

We've got all these devs volunteering time to these FOSS projects but rarely do we have people whose role is to figure out what users want. Devs tend to design from the perspective of "what features do "I" care about" which isn't always aligned with what users care about.

They don't have a plan they just want to blissfully hand law enforcement more power to spy on citizens and toss non violent offenders in prison. War on drugs called, wants its script back.

I appreciate you posting the link to my question, but that's an article written from the perspective of law enforcement. They're an authority, so they're incentivized to manipulate facts and deceive to gain more authority. Sorry if I don't trust law enforcement but they've proven themselves untrustworthy at this point

I keep seeing people post this same idea, and I see no proof that it would actually happen.

Why would you need "real" CP if there's like-for-like-quality AI CP out there?

Also, aside from going out of our way to wreck the lives of individuals who look at the stuff, is there any actual concrete stats that say we're preventing any sort of significant number of RL child abuse by giving up rights to privacy or paying FBI agents to post CP online and entrap people? I Don't get behind the "if it theoretically helped one single child, I'd genocide a nation.." bs. I want to see what we've gained so far by these policies before I agree to giving govt more power by expanding them.

How often does tracking child abuse imagery lead to preventing actual child abuse? Out of all the children who are abused each year, what percentage of their abusers are tracked via online imagery? Aren't a lot of these cases IRL/situationally based? That's what I'm trying to determine here. Is this even a good use of public resources and/or focus?

As for how you personally feel about the imagery, I believe that a lot of things humans do are gross, but I don't believe we should be arbitrarily creating laws to restrict things that others do that I find appalling.. unless there's a very good reason to. It's extremely dangerous to go flying too fast down that road, esp with anything related to "terror/security" or "for the children" we need to be especially careful. We don't need another case of "Well in hindsight, that [war on whatever] was a terrible idea and hurt lots and lots of people"

And let's be absolutely clear here: I 100% believe that people abusing children is fucked up, and the fact that I even need to add this disclaimer here should be a red flag about the dangers of how this issue is structured.

I am sort of curious, bc I don't know: of all the types of sexual abuse that happens to children, ie being molested by family or acquaintances, being kidnapped by the creep in the van, being trafficked for prostitution, abuse in church, etc etc... in comparison to these cases, how many cases deal exclusively with producing imagery?

Next thing I'm curious about: if the internet becomes flooded with AI generated CP images, could that potentially reduce the demand for RL imagery? Wouldn't the demand-side be met? Is the concern normalization and inducing demand? Do we know there's any significant correlation between more people looking and more people actually abusing kids?

Which leads to the next part: I play violent video games and listen to violent aggressive music and have for many years now and I enjoy it a lot, and I've never done violence to anybody before, nor would I want to. Is persecuting someone for imagining/mentally roleplaying something that's cruel actually a form of social abuse in itself?

Props to anybody who asks hard questions btw, bc guaranteed there will be a lot of bullying on this topic. I'm not saying "I'm right and they're wrong", but there's a lot of nuance here and people here seem pretty quick to hand govt and police incredible powers for.. I dunno.. how much gain really? You'll never get rights back that you throw away. Never. They don't make 'em anymore these days.

I'll typically buy albums from artists that I'm pretty certain aren't mega wealthy, and actually I've just been paying less attention to the ones who are. If I check them out on YouTube and they have a Vevo logo on the vid that's a easy way to know they don't need my money at all.

I loved the fact that I didn't need an emissions test for several years after buying a new car, but I hate that it essentially boils down to an inconvenience, a tax of sorts, for less financially inclined people. Even if emissions tests are free, it's still time wasted, but only if you're not wealthy.

They're probably just trying to prevent any user momentum away from Chrome from gaining traction. Ensure there remains no better options for the people who don't care about privacy or ethics (which sadly is the bulk of ppl)