The main daily newspaper in San Francisco had a front page article trumpeting a "takedown" of a child porn ring. I commented online that this was an advertisement by the government to encourage surrendering our rights to "protect the children".
The reaction was pure hate for my posting because it was defending pedophiles (it wasn't). It felt like an angry mob that had nothing but revenge on its mind.
This is why the efforts to destroy all privacy will succeed. For the kids. Yeah, that's it.
The thing is, that takedown, an Ars Technica article about which was on the HN front page briefly last night, was accomplished without this heinous legislation. To my mind, that rather puts the lie to the need for such laws.
The reaction was pure hate for my posting because it was
defending pedophiles (it wasn't).
What do you except? It's sad to see that even usually decent and intelligent people devolve into frothing mobsters when you oppose something that's 'for the children', however ridiculous it may be. It becomes especially despicable when you see the content industry essentially stating that child pornography is a fabulous excuse to justify domain seizures, censorship and other completely outrageous measures to protect their failing business model[1].
It's pretty difficult (if not to say dangerous) to hold a position that's in opposition to such measures. Especially, as in my case, when one is of the opinion that it's not child pornography we should be fighting, but child abuse. The former is, for the most parts, a victimless crime (just look at what's consider child pornography today, it's absolutely ridiculous). I would even say that the holy crusade against child pornography obfuscates and hinders the fight against child abuse severely.
The reaction was pure hate for my posting because it was defending pedophiles (it wasn't). It felt like an angry mob that had nothing but revenge on its mind.
This is why the efforts to destroy all privacy will succeed. For the kids. Yeah, that's it.