This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Good riddance.
My heuristic is that any time the state whines about CSAM, or generally one of the horsemen of the infocalypse, treat it as a power grab by the police wanting more rights to snoop on citizens. Once you let them snoop, they will find other areas of concern which are also very terrible and before you know it, you have been frog-boiled into letting them search your phones for copyright violations.
The largest problem with CSAM is people paying for it, because it creates an incentive to produce more, which involves the sexual abuse of kids. The good news (at least when this product is concerned) here is that most people are not skilled enough to hide financial transactions. "So you just create a bunch of wallets and then use mixers to move funds from a wallet linked to you to a wallet not linked to you" is not something most people will understand.
The second, IMHO much smaller problem is people making CSAM available for members of the public. It is obviously bad for the victims, and arguably it may create customers willing to pay or more speculatively drives consumers to sexual abuse. But even here you do not need to scan people's private messages. After all, definitionally any such group has an inlet, which means that you can just have cops infiltrate it. And once you are in their chat groups, you can trivially track down the people behind it through their phone numbers. Well, at least for mainstream chat apps which the chat control would target, but anyone tech savvy enough to use tor will also be tech savvy enough to thwart client side scanning.
What remains would be closed groups, who personally know and trust each other, and use encrypted chat apps to exchange CSAM. This seems a pretty minor problem, to be honest. If you institute client side scanning, they can just switch to trading boxes full of VHS tapes. Any car on the Autobahn could have such a box in it! Does this mean we should install xray scanners to search through all the cars?
Obviously not. There are always tradeoffs between effectively enforcing laws and the costs of doing so, both monetarily and to civil liberty. CSAM as a whole, and the cases which could only be detected with client side scanning in particular does not seem like a big deal, e.g. compared to sexual abuse of children more generally. I mean, it is good that it is illegal and we will punish you if we catch you, but the average kid getting sexually abused is not getting abused because their guardian wants to make a quick buck selling CSAM.
But the political reality is that there are no quick fixes for actual sexual abuse. It is just not politically feasible to put any child under 24-7 video surveillance (and in fact that would probably mess up kids too). The relevant tradeoff is how much you want to treat any father, teacher or sports coach as a possible child molester. But you can't win any votes by moving that tradeoff.
So instead you focus on the creeps watching CSAM, and the technology they use. 80% of the voters don't understand tech, and everyone hates CSAM, so that is a winning strategy.
End-to-end encryption is a technical fix which was widely rolled out when it became apparent to the tech community that the state will snoop on traffic to the maximum extend technically feasible. Similar to how the US founders wanted the population armed so there was a failsafe if the government turned bad, really. Obviously there is some push against E2E, and this is just part of that.
As a side notice, I find it especially ironic that the so-called Christian parties (e.g. CDU in Germany) are always championing these anti-tech measures. Half of them are in a church which a mere generation ago was systematically enabling priests to sexually abuse kids. You know, actual children, most of whom were likely traumatized. And now they want to tell us that if there is some creep who is jerking off to nude pictures of five-year-olds, that is a civilizational emergency and we need to bug everyone's phones to stop it.
This is just general man-hating; the women who vote for those parties want the power to ban all men jerking off to nude pictures of women (so that men can be maximally exploited by women) and 5 year olds are just the motte of that argument. Traditionalists (or more loosely, 'Christian conservatives') and progressives are in agreement that this is a thing that should happen and the language differences between the two groups are just bikeshedding.
And their opponents are progressives, who are... also systematically enabling priests to sexually abuse kids, but it's totally different this time because instead of men in churches with an abusive hand it's women in schools with an abusive mouth.
Also there's lots of sexual abuse of children by teachers. Supposedly far more than the total amount of abuse by religious figures. But more kids go to school than church.
Teachers are religious figures. The Christian Right was correct when they made this observation back when they were a relevant political force, but they also believed that was in large part a good thing and were as such unwilling to actually do anything about it.
Which is in part why they got away with it even when the gender balance was closer to 50/50 than it is today, and now that it's shifted further into a majority-female profession, that gender's sexual abuse is harder to prosecute because [for the 50% of the population that doesn't benefit from being able to do it], a significant portion of men don't believe it's a coherent concept, and even if they do, they think that the only way it happens is not actually destructive (re: South_Park_Nice.jpg).
Yet, if you believe the statistics that show this population 'abuses' students in the male mode at a far higher rate than men did at their peak, it's likely that the female mode of sexual abuse occurs at an even higher rate than that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As of 1999, most people who downloaded paid kiddieporn online knew perfectly how to hide financial transactions - they used stolen credit cards. Operation Avalanche in the US found 35,000 credit card numbers and only made 100 arrests and various foreign offshoots including Operation Ore in the UK became fiascos because they arrested the legitimate owners of the stolen credit cards.
People who knowingly download paid kiddieporn know that they are committing a crime that society (rightly or wrongly) takes more seriously than small-time financial crime and that the material they are looking for is on a darker part of the dark web than advice on how to obfuscate financial transactions.
A quibble, but the Christian element of the German CDU is predominantly Protestant, and I am not aware of a large child abuse scandal in the German Lutheran Church. Catholic Bavaria has a different Christian Democratic party (the CSU) which is in near-permanent coalition with the CSU at the federal level, and obviously is guilty-by-association in the way you suggest.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link