The argument is exactly the same as the argument for not banning alcohol, decriminalizing drugs etc. Fight against actual crime instead of wasting resources on ineffective measures that look "morally right".
Right. Because those images were just created magically? Someone took them. And there's a market for them.
If there's no market for such pictures, likely less children will suffer the consequences.
Fighting the crime directly is important, but so is doing it indirectly.
Read about the suicide rates in the UK by women before and after the country changed the type of gas stoves. Indirect effects can be very strong.
Reconsider your morals and logic.
The attempt to fight indirectly clearly had not succeeded so far. And most often is used as a pretext for introducing mechanisms that afterwards are used for censorship.
I don't advocate for one policy or another. In fact i'd be happy if i was wrong and the fight with numbers was actually useful, but logic tells that it isn't.
No it doesn't.
If you'd like to offer advice about HN moderation, breaking the site guidelines while doing so is unlikely to persuade.
The market will always exist: pedophiles. They have been and will be among us until the end of times.
> Fighting the crime directly is important, but so is doing it indirectly.
Yes, but the difference is so abysmal that you know where is more important to put the effort. Stopping even 1 child of being abused is better than stopping the sharing of 1 million child porn pics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_International_child_porno...
have you talked to those children and asked whether or not they think publically displaying and selling images of their abuse is abuse?
I don't advocate for one policy or another. In fact i'd be happy if i was wrong and the fight with numbers was actually useful. But i am rather sceptical about it, because the only argument its supporters have is "think of the children, you monster!"